Union Pacific Railroad UPRR’s Alton Regional Multimodal Transportation Center Project, Alton 

Illinois 

Environmental Assessment 

Submitted Pursuant to 64 FR 28545 

by the 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

and 

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Date of Approval For Illinois DOT 

ABSTRACT: The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) in conjunction with the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) is evaluating improvements to the Alton Amtrak Station, including a 

new station, in Alton, Illinois. This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the construction of a 

new train station, together with amenities, for single-track service with planned room for expansion 

when two-track service is implemented. 

These improvements were not included in the Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail Project 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), completed in January 2003 and the Record of Decision signed 

in January 2004. The proposed improvements have independent utility in addressing issues for 

existing and expected near-term freight and Amtrak services, and do not preclude other options of 

High Speed Rail if further corridor studies are initiated or advanced under the National 

Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). 

The preferred alternative includes 1.) the construction of a new platform, 2.) a new station building, 

and 3.) a parking area with access road. No significant impacts to natural, social, or human 

environments would occur. Potential impacts to low quality wetlands could occur but impacts would 

be minimized and mitigated. Potential impacts of water quality, noise, transportation, and air quality 

could occur but are short-term construction-related activities. 

The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: 

Miriam Gutierrez, Bureau Chief 

IDOT Bureau of High Speed and Passenger Rail 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, IL 60601 

04/04/2013
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ALTON REGIONAL MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION 

CENTER PROJECT

ALTON, MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS

Prepared Pursuant to 42 USC § 4332, 49 USC § 303, and 64 FR 28545

by the

Illinois Department of Transportation

April 2013

The following person may be contacted for information or to submit comments through April 

2013 on the Environmental Assessment: 

Miriam Gutierrez, Bureau Chief

IDOT Bureau of High Speed and Passenger Rail

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600

Chicago, IL 60601
Alton Regional Multimodal

Transportation Center Project i Environmental Assessment

Contents

1.0 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Project History...............................................................................................................1-2

1.3 Study Area .....................................................................................................................1-3

1.4 Project Purpose and Need ...........................................................................................1-7

1.5 Applicable Regulations ................................................................................................1-8

2.0 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives...........................................................................2-2

2.3 Evaluated Alternatives.................................................................................................2-4

2.4 Alternatives Dismissed and Carried Forward for Further Evaluation .................2-6

2.4.1 Sites Carried Forward for Further Evaluation.............................................2-7

2.4.2 Sites Dismissed from Further Evaluation.....................................................2-9

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts, and Mitigation..........................................................3-1

3.1 Physical Environment ..................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Air Quality........................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Energy................................................................................................................3-3

3.1.3 Floodplains .......................................................................................................3-3

3.1.4 Noise and Vibration.........................................................................................3-6

3.1.5 Agriculture......................................................................................................3-11

3.1.6 Tree Resources................................................................................................3-11

3.2 Ecological Systems......................................................................................................3-12

3.2.1 Wetlands and Waters of the US ...................................................................3-12

3.2.2 Water Quality and Water Resources...........................................................3-15

3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................3-18

3.2.4 Special Lands..................................................................................................3-18

3.2.5 4(f) Properties .................................................................................................3-19
Alton Regional Multimodal

Transportation Center Project ii Environmental Assessment

3.2.6 Aesthetic Environment and Scenic Resources ...........................................3-20

3.3 Human Environment..................................................................................................3-21

3.3.1 Transportation................................................................................................3-21

3.3.2 Land Use .........................................................................................................3-22

3.3.3 Demographics ................................................................................................3-22

3.3.4 Environmental Justice and Title VI .............................................................3-25

3.3.5 Public Health and Safety...............................................................................3-26

3.3.6 Hazardous Materials .....................................................................................3-26

3.3.7 Cultural Resources.........................................................................................3-28

3.4 Construction Impacts .................................................................................................3-29

3.5 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................3-30

3.5.1 Indirect Impacts .............................................................................................3-30

3.5.2 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................3-31

3.6 Preferred Alternative..................................................................................................3-31

3.7 Permits..........................................................................................................................3-32

4.0 Coordination and Consultation .............................................................................................4-1

4.1 Meetings .........................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Agencies .........................................................................................................................4-1

4.2.1 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Consultation ...........................4-1

4.2.2 Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Consultation..............4-1

5.0 Distribution List........................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Agency Coordination ...................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Federal Agencies ..............................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 State Agencies...................................................................................................5-1

5.1.3 Other Agencies and Commissions ................................................................5-1

5.1.4 Counties.............................................................................................................5-1

5.1.5 Local Communities and Jurisdictions...........................................................5-1

5.1.6 Railroads ...........................................................................................................5-1

6.0 References ..................................................................................................................................6-1
Alton Regional Multimodal

Transportation Center Project iii Environmental Assessment

Figures

Figure 1 – Original Alternatives............................................................................................................1-5

Figure 2 – Project Location Map ...........................................................................................................1-6

Figure 3 – FIRM Map..............................................................................................................................3-4

Figure 4 – FIRM Map..............................................................................................................................3-5

Figure 5 – Environmental Inventory ..................................................................................................3-13

Figure 6 – Environmental Inventory ..................................................................................................3-13

Tables

Table 1 – Summary of Evaluation Area Ratings.................................................................................2-7

Table 2 – Dismissed Alternatives and Dismissal Factors ..................................................................2-9

Table 3 – General Assessment Noise Analysis Results......................................................................3-7

Table 4 – Ground-borne Vibration General Assessment (Passenger Trains) .................................3-9

Table 5 – Wetlands and their Characteristics in Delineated Areas ................................................3-15

Table 6 – Population and Households 2000 and 2010 Census........................................................3-23

Table 7 – Population by Race and Ethnicity 2010.............................................................................3-24

Table 8 – Employment by Major Industry, Madison County (2009) .............................................3-24

Table 9 – Employment by Major Industry, City of Alton (2009)....................................................3-25

Table 10 – Median Household Income, 1999 (Census 2000) and 2010 (Estimated).....................3-25

Appendices

Appendix A – Hazardous Materials Database Report

Appendix B – Coordination and Consultation

Appendix C – Alton Programming Study

Appendix D – Emissions
Alton Regional Multimodal

Transportation Center Project iv Environmental Assessment

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

C Coefficient of Conservation

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Information System

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO Carbon Monoxide

CWA Clean Water Act

dBA A-Weighted Decibels

DBH Diameter at Breast Height

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EA Environmental Assessment

EcoCAT Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool

EDR Environmental Data Resources

EO Executive Order

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FEMA Federal Environmental Management Agency

FHWA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

FQI Floristic Quality Index

FRA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration

HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition

HSIPR High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail

HSR High-Speed Rail

IDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation

IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

ISGS Illinois State Geological Survey

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

IWPA Interagency Wetland Policy Act

mIBI Macro-invertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity

MP Milepost (Mile Post)

MPH Miles per Hour

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priority Listing

NR National Register
Alton Regional Multimodal

Transportation Center Project v Environmental Assessment

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWI National Wetland Inventory

PM Particulate Matter

PNS Project Notification System

ppm Parts Per Million

REC Recognized Environmental Condition

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Right-of-Way

SFR Single-Family Residences

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

UP Union Pacific

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WOUS Waters of the United States
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 1-1 Environmental Assessment

1.0 Purpose and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction

The proposed Alton Regional Multimodal Transportation Center (Transportation Center) is a 

component of the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Project (Original Project) 

proposed by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) in coordination with the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The 

proposed Transportation Center would provide a completely new facility in Alton, Illinois 

along the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor, which would include car and bicycle 

parking, roadway access and bus parking, adjacent to a new Alton high speed passenger rail 

station and boarding platform. This facility would create a new surface transportation hub at 

the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) gateway immediately north of the St. Louis 

metropolitan area. Track upgrades and other improvements capable of accommodating speeds 

of 110 mph extending south to Alton will be complete by 2014. A Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for the high speed rail project evaluated a proposed action that included 

improvements to the existing Alton Station serving existing Amtrak passenger trains at College 

Avenue (IL 140) and Kendall Avenue in Alton. In the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) dated January 2003, IDOT identified the existing Alton Station as a stop along the 

corridor, but no improvements to the station were proposed or assumed. FRA issued a Record 

of Decision (ROD) for the high speed rail project, dated January 8, 2004, which selected the 

Preferred Alternative as described in the FEIS, and adopted an incremental approach to 

upgrading the line to support 110-mph high-speed rail (HSR) service using the existing 

Chicago–St. Louis Amtrak route. Because improvements/upgrades to the existing Alton Station 

or a new station at an alternative location were not considered in the 2003 FEIS or the 2004 

ROD, they must be evaluated to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 

Subsequent to the FRA’s issuance of the ROD, the City of Alton and Madison County Transit

(MCT) began considering and developing a proposal for construction of a transportation center, 

which would integrate a passenger rail station with a multimodal central hub for regional and 

local bus lines, as well as adjacent multi-use, transit-oriented development (including 

commercial, residential and institutional components). The existing Alton Station location is

limited in size and a search was initiated for other suitable sites able to accommodate a 

transportation center in terms of acreage, access and availability. A number of potential sites 

were identified. 

The City of Alton and Madison County Transit also submitted an application to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation under the Transportation Investment Generating Economic 

Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grant program seeking funding for the construction of a 

transportation center (the “transportation Center”). The U.S. DOT approved funding for the 

Transportation Center in the amount of $13.85 million in late 2011. In addition, IDOT also 

allocated $7.4 Million in high-speed rail funds it has received from the FRA for the 

Transportation Center. The Transportation Center is estimated to cost $22.5 million. 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 1-2 Environmental Assessment

This EA evaluates IDOT’s proposal to construct a Transportation Center in the City of Alton,

which includes a new passenger rail station and platforms, parking for approximately 230 cars, 

roadway access improvements, and ten bus parking spots for both regional and local bus lines. 

IDOT has prepared this document consistent with FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 28545, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

As an action supported by federal funds, the project must comply with NEPA. NEPA requires 

federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on the natural, social, economic, and 

cultural environment and to disclose considerations in a public document. The NEPA process is 

intended to help public officials make decisions based on an understanding of the 

environmental consequences and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the 

environment (40 CFR § 1500.1).

The purpose of this EA is to provide FRA and the public with a full accounting of the 

environmental impacts of the alternatives. The EA serves as the primary document to facilitate 

review of the proposed project by federal, state and local agencies, and the public.

1.2 Project History

The proposed Transportation Center would implement part of the Midwest Regional Rail 

System (MWRRS) plan (1998, 2000, and 2004) for the Chicago to St. Louis corridor. 

Rail System Planning

The MWRRS plan was developed by Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, 

Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri in partnership with the FRA and Amtrak, to implement a 21st 

Century regional passenger rail system that fundamentally changes passenger rail service in the 

Midwest based on specific service concepts (increased operating speed and train frequency, 

system connectivity and high service reliability) and use of existing rights-of-way shared with 

freight and commuter rail. The plan calls for refurbishment of existing passenger stations (or 

construction of new facilities) to enhance their aesthetics, functionality and the stations’ ability 

to support potential station-related income producing improvements. 

For over a decade, IDOT has pursued improvements to passenger rail service between Chicago 

and St. Louis that include upgrades to operations and facilities, track rehabilitation, and barrier 

testing for high speed service. A feasibility study for high speed rail in the corridor was initiated 

in 1992, culminating in the Financial and Implementation Plan (1994). Environmental impact 

studies were subsequently initiated in the late 1990’s. 

Rail System Implementation

Following the issuance of the 2004 ROD, IDOT has implemented major improvements in the 

Chicago to St. Louis Corridor in cooperation with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), which 

owns the right-of-way (ROW) south of Joliet and operates rail freight services in the corridor. 

Extensive rehabilitation and upgrading of the Chicago to St. Louis corridor track and signal 

systems has been undertaken and four quadrant gates have been installed at many grade 

crossings. Work has been completed using loans and grants provided by IDOT and grants from 

the FRA. In 2010, IDOT received additional funding for corridor improvements between 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 1-3 Environmental Assessment

Dwight and St. Louis based on the 2004 ROD. Specific design elements of the HSR service are 

now undergoing environmental evaluation, including this Transportation Center project, as 

preliminary design plans are developed.

Other Transportation Initiatives

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was passed on December 18, 

1991, and requested designation of up to five HSR corridors nationwide. A core of what would 

become the Chicago Hub Network was announced by the Secretary of Transportation in 1992. 

Chicago-based routes to Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Detroit were included in this network. 

Development of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) plan began in 1996 under the 

leadership of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and focused on upgrading existing 

routes. The plan was released in 2004. Trains would travel at approximately 110 miles per hour 

on the primary routes, and 80 to 90 mph on secondary lines. Four-quadrant gates were installed 

at 69 grade crossings. Illinois, the American Association of Railroads and the FRA have also 

invested millions of dollars to develop and demonstrate a nationally applicable positive train 

control system in the corridor.

1.3 Study Area

The study areas are the result of a comprehensive investigation encompassing approximately a 

nine mile stretch along the UPRR mainline through the municipalities of Godfrey, Alton, and 

East Alton. In that investigation, IDOT selected eight possible new station locations for analysis: 

two sites in Godfrey, five sites in Alton, and one site in East Alton (See Figure 1). Of these eight 

locations, IDOT carried forward two Build Alternatives and a No-Build Alternative for further 

evaluation: Site 1 (approximately 6 acres) is located approximately 1,000 feet south of IL 140 

(College Avenue) situated between the UPRR tracks on the west and IL 3 (Homer M. Adams 

Parkway) on the east; Site 2 (approximately 21.5 acres) is located approximately 1,000 feet north 

of IL 3 (Homer M. Adams Parkway) situated between the UPRR tracks on the northeast and 

Golf Road on the west; and the existing station located in Alton (the No-Build Alternative) 

adjacent to the north side of IL 140 (College Avenue) and extending approximately 1,500 feet 

along the west side of the UPRR tracks. These three sites are shown on Figure 2.

This southwest region of Illinois was settled in the early 1800s due to access from the 

Mississippi River, establishing Alton as a river town by 1818. The area is located near the 

confluence of three significant navigable rivers; the Illinois, Mississippi and Missouri. In a short 

time, Alton grew from a river trading town to a center for commerce and industry not just from 

river access, but also through the advent of rail service that started in 1852. This rail line linked

Alton with St. Louis, located 15 miles to the south and Chicago located approximately 260 miles

to the north; and was known as the Chicago & Alton Railroad. 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 1-5 Environmental Assessment

Figure 1 – Original Alternatives
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 1-6 Environmental Assessment

Source: Google Maps, 2012

Figure 2 – Project Location Map
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 1-7 Environmental Assessment

1.4 Project Purpose and Need

As set forth in the 2003 FEIS, the primary purpose of the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Project is to 

complete the improvements necessary to enhance the passenger transportation network in the 

Chicago to St. Louis corridor. The existing transportation network consists of highway 

(automobile and bus), air and rail (Amtrak) travel. Currently, 99 percent of the 35 million 

annual trips in the Chicago to St. Louis corridor are accomplished through automobile and air 

travel. The Chicago to St. Louis HSR Project is intended to lead to a more balanced use of the 

network by diverting trips made by automobile and air to passenger rail. A more balanced use 

of the network will provide benefits to the human environment over the existing network use. 

The need of the high speed rail program was to improve on-time performance on the existing 

Chicago to St. Louis route and to provide for an increase in average speeds and shorter trip 

times. According to ridership estimates, the 2010 mode split for annual person trips in the 

corridor is 97.3 percent for automobile, 1.1 percent for air, 1.3 percent for rail (Amtrak), and 0.3 

percent for bus. Updated 1998 person-trip estimates indicated a similar split. Over 90 percent of 

the over 50 million corridor trips have origins or destinations in either Chicago or St. Louis. To 

achieve a more balanced transportation system in the corridor, trips must be diverted from the 

predominant modes of automobile and air. 

In addition to the needs identified in the 2003 FEIS and 2004 ROD, the Transportation Center is 

needed specifically because of the deficiencies of the existing facilities at the Alton Amtrak 

Station. These include insufficient platform length, lack of connectivity between rail, bus and 

automobile travel, insufficient parking for passengers driving to the station, crowded and 

inadequate indoor waiting areas and limited access to amenities. The Transportation Center 

would address these needs and provide improved user access to and transfers between Amtrak 

and bus service in Alton, Illinois. 

In 2010, a total of 57,588 passengers used the existing Alton Amtrak Station. The majority of 

these passengers (55 percent) travelled to or from Chicago. The number of passengers using 

Alton Station is expected to grow as high-speed service begins operating on the corridor. By 

2030, there are expected to be 119,777 passengers using Alton Station every year, which is more 

than double the number using the facility today. A total of 18 trains (9 in each direction) will 

service this station in each direction daily. 

Guidance from the FRA for station operational standards/characteristics is published in 

Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans – A Guidance Manual, (Federal Railroad 

Administration, 2005). This publication provides guidance to proponents of new or improved 

high-speed intercity rail services or systems and served as the basis for developing the needs for 

the Alton Transportation Center. A new Transportation Center site must provide a straight 

section of track to allow for construction of straight passenger platforms at least five hundred 

feet in length. Straight platforms are imperative to provide clear sightlines for railway personnel 

when passengers are boarding and alighting trains. The site should also be large enough to 

meet the anticipated space requirements for the 2030 projected use of the Transportation Center 

(119,777 passengers per year). To meet the needs of the passengers, a station house, parking for 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 1-8 Environmental Assessment

230 automobile, bicycle parking and parking for 10 buses will be needed as detailed in the 

Station Programming Study Appendix C, also available on the Illinois HSR website) for Alton. 

Additionally, room for future expansion beyond 2030 of parking beyond the 230 spaces should 

be considered as ridership grows in the coming decades

1.5 Applicable Regulations

The following statutes and orders apply to the proposed action and were considered during the 

preparation of the EA: 

Endangered Species Act, as regulated at 50 CFR Part 17

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 50 CFR Part 600

Public Law 91-190, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC § 4321 et seq., signed 

January 1, 1970

Public Law 95-217, Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 USC § 1251-1376 

Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 USC § 401 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 USC § 470 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 USC § 303 

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA), 33 USC § 1344 

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, 16 USC § 460 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended, 42 USC § 61 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 42 FR 26951, signed May 24, 1977 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, signed May 24, 1977 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, signed February 11, 1994 

Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency, 65 FR 50121, signed August 11, 2000 

Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 

28545 (May 26, 1999) 

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental 

Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, November 29, 1978 

Federal Register, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Final Rule, 49 

CFR Parts 222 and 229, April 27, 2005 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 2-1 Environmental Assessment

2.0 Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

Subsequent to the issuance of the 2004 ROD, IDOT evaluated the existing Alton Station and

found that the station had numerous deficiencies that would require upgrades to meet the 

needs and guidelines developed for facilities and amenities with respect to HSR service. Section 

2.2 provides more details on these guidelines. Also occurring subsequent to the ROD was the 

development of a transportation center concept by the City of Alton and the MCT with potential 

future transit-oriented development (TOD) around the facility. Improvements to the existing 

station were considered, however, the site characteristics of the station and its limited acreage 

presented limitations in accommodating the elements of the developing transportation center. 

From this conclusion, IDOT initiated a search for alternative sites that had the potential to 

accommodate construction of a new rail station, and a new transportation center. IDOT 

identified eight potential site alternatives in a draft 2012 alternatives screening report (Illinois 

Department of Transportation, 2012). Concept development and preliminary site planning for 

the new rail station and the associated transportation center included development of design 

and site criteria on which to evaluate the sites, preliminary site planning and a ranked, 

screening-level evaluation of the alternative sites to select one or more alternatives for further 

and more comprehensive evaluation as part of the environmental assessment. The alternatives 

evaluation process consisted of the following tasks: (1) Identifying the range of possible

alternatives; (2) Screening the alternatives for their benefits and impacts; (3) Comparing the 

alternatives, and: (4) Recommending the reasonable alternative – or alternatives - for further 

evaluation. 

This section of the EA presents a summary of the considerations made as part of the station site 

alternatives screening for all of the sites and the findings of that screening leading to the

identification of alternative(s) for further evaluation in the station planning and programming 

process and in this EA.

The existing Alton Station represents the No-Build condition and is defined as being without 

improvements. Normal maintenance would continue at the existing station. 

The Proposed Action, as defined for this EA, is the construction of a new High-speed Rail 

passenger station composed of new platforms, canopies, a new stationhouse with restrooms, 

ticket office, baggage room, mechanical rooms, and all planned vending, concessions or retail 

space. The proposed action also includes improvements necessary for auto, bus, bike, and 

pedestrian access, surface parking for 230 automobiles, bicycle parking facilities, and bus 

parking for ten local and regional Madison County Transit (MCT) buses. Although detailed bus 

schedules for the proposal have not yet been developed, a bus frequency of 2-3 buses per hour 

is reasonable given the exiting bus service currently being provided at the Alton Amtrak 

Station. The alternatives evaluated in this EA include: (1) the No-Build Alternative (existing 

Amtrak station, with regular normal maintenance but no improvements) and (2) the Build 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 2-2 Environmental Assessment

Alternatives. Two build alternative sites (Sites 1 and 2) were identified because they best met 

the screening evaluation criteria.

2.2 Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives

The FRA and Amtrak developed station-siting guidelines specifically for HSR passenger 

stations. Guidance from the FRA for station location and operational standards/characteristics is 

published in Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans – A Guidance Manual, (Federal Railroad 

Administration, 2005). This publication provides guidance to proponents of new or improved 

high-speed intercity rail services or systems, and served as the basis for developing an 

evaluation process for stations in the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor. 

Clarifications and further guidelines specific to the corridor have occurred as a result of the 

agency planning and coordination process throughout the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Project. 

From a synthesis of these guidelines, IDOT developed a methodology to evaluate and select 

station alternatives based on four main categories: Location within the Community, 

Accessibility and Parking, Site Assessment, and Railroad Characteristics. The alternative sites 

were selected by IDOT for study based on generally desirable characteristics that potentially 

met criteria within these four categories and programmatic needs specific to the City of Alton 

and the MCT.

Location within the Community

The FRA has developed the following general guidelines for locating corridor rail passenger 

stations:

Each city should have a station located in or near the central business district (CBD). This is 

mandatory for larger Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), with metropolitan populations 

of 150,000 or more, since to do otherwise would undermine the inherent advantages of rail 

passenger systems. Central locations are highly desirable, if at all possible, for smaller cities

as well. This center city station should have direct access to local transit systems (bus, rail, 

taxi, etc.), as well as appropriate amounts of parking for private cars.

One or more suburban stations need to be provided in order to accommodate potential 

riders living outside the city centers. Classic successful examples of suburban or beltway 

stations are Route 128 outside Boston, MA and New Carrollton, MD outside Washington, 

DC. These “beltway”-type stations cater to automobile-oriented riders and thus need to 

have many hundreds, if not several thousand, parking spaces to fulfill their role in corridor 

transportation.

Every effort should be made to have each corridor station serve as a regional intermodal 

passenger terminal for all forms of regional and local transportation systems.

Based upon the FRA guidelines for the Location within the Community, IDOT developed the 

following criteria for the evaluation of potential station sites:

Surrounding Land Use

Access to Support Services
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 2-3 Environmental Assessment

Regeneration of Urban Center

Intermodal Access

Site Visibility

Site Access to Roadways

Multimodal Station Potential

Accessibility and Parking

A number of elements in the design of rail stations and the amenities provided for passengers 

are critically important in attracting riders to intercity and commuter trains. Accessibility to a 

variety of users is a key element in station design. Accessibility is defined as the ease of use or 

approach to a particular space or area. Evaluation areas related to Accessibility and Parking are

directly tied to the ridership at the station. Transit research studies have shown that stations 

providing too few parking spaces for passenger vehicles or stations located in a residential 

neighborhood that is distant from arterial streets will have a smaller ridership than those 

located near major roadways. Clear, understandable and adequate signage directing motorists, 

pedestrians or bicyclists to the station is also a particularly important aspect of accessibility, as 

is access by other modes of transportation (bus, pedestrians and bicycles). The system will not 

be used if the patrons cannot find their way easily and conveniently to the station. The ability of 

the site to interface with surrounding pedestrian and bicycle facilities and the ability to 

incorporate amenities specific to these modes into the site and station design are a significant 

evaluation concern. IDOT developed criteria related to these concepts for the following 

evaluation areas:

Infrastructure Improvements

Site Entrance/Exit

Internal Site Circulation

Rental Cars

Bicycle Access

Pedestrian Access

Site Assessment

The physical and geometric characteristics of the parcel(s) of land being evaluated for the 

station site comprise the criteria for site assessment. The location and access to the parcel may 

be ideal for a station site. However, if the site has adverse grades or is an awkwardly shaped 

parcel, development of the site into a station and supporting facilities may be cost-prohibitive or 

result in a poorly designed station site. 

Following is a list of the criteria used to evaluate the potential station locations for Site 

Assessment:

Site Topography

Site Size at Opening

Environmental Issues

Site Configuration
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 2-4 Environmental Assessment

Existing Utilities

Future Expansion Potential

Property Ownership and Willingness to Sell

Railroad Characteristics

In addition to the location and accessibility of the site as well as the physical characteristics of 

the site for development into a station, the railroad track geometrics adjacent to the site and the 

railroad track configuration within the proximity of the site should also be assessed. Highway 

crossings and existing bridges or tunnels near the station site may limit or prohibit the 

development of a site. Following is a list of the criteria used to evaluate the railroad geometrics:

Existing Rail Alignment

Track Grades

Station Track Configuration

Highway Crossing Locations

Existing Bridges, Tunnels, and Other Impediments

2.3 Evaluated Alternatives

The No-Build and eight initial alternative sites described below were evaluated and compared 

based on the concepts and methodology described above. Figure 1 (found in Section 1.4) depicts 

the existing Alton Amtrak Station and the eight alternative station sites. The reasons why each 

site was chosen for screening in the alternatives evaluation is presented as part of the 

description. All of the alternative station sites potentially had sufficient acreage to accommodate 

the Transportation Center.

Existing Alton Amtrak Station (No-Build Alternative)

The existing Amtrak station site is located at 3400 College Avenue in the northeast quadrant of 

the intersection of IL 140 (College Avenue) and Kendall Avenue in Alton, and is approximately 

2.3 miles east of downtown Alton. The area is predominantly a single-family residential 

neighborhood and is approximately 2 miles from the central business district (CBD) of Alton. 

The existing station was evaluated as the No-Build Alternative, which is required by NEPA, 

and is the existing station with no modifications or improvements and having routine 

maintenance.

Site 1

Site 1 is 0.3 miles southeast of the existing Alton Amtrak station, located behind the existing 

Holiday Inn and Comfort Inn motels, and is approximately 2.5 miles east of downtown Alton.

The site is approximately 0.25 miles south of College Avenue and is adjacent to the UPRR 

mainline and IL 3 (Homer Adams Parkway) in Alton. Site 1 was identified because of its 

location and current availability for station development. The City of Alton and the MCT 

expressed their interest in developing this parcel into a multimodal transportation center. Site 1 

is approximately 6 acres, with additional acreage available for future expansion.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 2-5 Environmental Assessment

Site 2

Site 2 is a 59-acre parcel located 1.6 miles northwest of the existing Alton Amtrak station, and is 

approximately 2.4 miles northeast of the downtown Alton. Approximately 21.41 acres of the 

total acreage would be used to construct the Transportation Center and its associated facilities. 

Site 2 is just north of IL 3/111 (Homer Adams Parkway) and is 1.9 miles northwest of the 

intersection of the Homer Adams Parkway and IL 140 (College Avenue) in Alton. The site is 

owned by the City of Alton and was operated as the Robert P. Wadlow Golf Course until April 

2012. Removal of the parcel from the Alton park system and rezoning was approved by the 

Alton City Council in October 2012. The site was identified because of its location, access to 

roadways, favorable site geometrics, and capability to accommodate a multimodal 

transportation center and future expansion.

Site 3

Site 3 is north of IL 3/111 (Homer Adams Parkway) and east of Washington Avenue in Alton, 

and is approximately 2.2 miles northeast of downtown Alton. The site is approximately one 

mile northwest of the existing Alton Amtrak station. This site was identified for its favorable 

track alignment and its proximity to existing retail development.

Site 4

Site 4 is south of IL 3/111 (Homer Adams Parkway), east of Washington Avenue and west of 

Seminary Street in Alton, and is approximately 2.2 miles northeast of downtown Alton. The site 

is approximately one mile northwest of the existing Alton Amtrak station. Site 4 was identified 

for its visibility and access from IL 3/111 and its favorable track alignment.

Site 5

Site 5 is 0.4 miles northwest of the existing Amtrak station, 0.4 miles northeast of the 

intersection of IL 140 and Seminary Street and 0.4 miles south of the intersection of IL 3 and 

Seminary Street in Alton. Site 5 is approximately 2.2 miles northeast of downtown Alton. This 

site was identified for the large acreage of undeveloped land that could accommodate the 

station, its associated facilities and parking.

Site 6

Site 6 is approximately 3.2 miles southeast of downtown Alton, and is located within the East 

Alton municipal limits. The site is on the east side of IL 3, 0.7 miles southeast of the intersection 

of IL 3 and West St. Louis Avenue. This location was identified for the large acreage of 

undeveloped land that could accommodate the station, its associated facilities and parking and 

for its favorable track alignment.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 2-6 Environmental Assessment

Site 7

Site 7 is in the Village of Godfrey 0.1 miles southwest of the intersection of North Humber Road 

and North Alby Street, and is approximately 3.8 miles north of downtown Alton. This site was 

identified for its favorable site topography and the potential to develop a multimodal 

transportation center. 

Site 8

Site 8 is in the Village of Godfrey, less than 0.1 miles south of the intersection of Bethany Lane 

and IL 111/267 (Montclair Avenue), and is approximately 5.6 miles north of downtown Alton.

This site was identified for the amount of vacant acreage available for development as a station 

site and its accessibility and visibility from IL 111/267 (Montclair Avenue).

The findings of the alternatives screening evaluation are presented in the following section.

2.4 Alternatives Dismissed and Carried Forward for Further

Evaluation

IDOT used criteria in four main categories (Location within the Community, Accessibility and 

Parking, Site Assessment, and Railroad Characteristics) in considering the relative strengths 

(positive) and weaknesses (negative) of each site. After a qualitative evaluation was developed, 

numeric ratings were assigned. From this final synthesis, build alternative(s) were carried 

forward for further design and evaluation in this environmental assessment, or dismissed from 

further consideration. Table 1 presents the summary of the evaluation ratings for the eight 

Transportation Center site alternatives and the existing Alton Amtrak Station. Six of the 

alternatives had limitations and weaknesses in their suitability for development as a 

transportation center that resulted in a relatively lower overall evaluation among the 

alternatives. These six alternatives were dismissed from further consideration. The dismissal of 

these six alternatives and the carrying forward of the remaining two build alternatives for 

further study is discussed below. The No-Build Alternative was carried forward in the EA for 

comparison with the build alternative(s).
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 2-7 Environmental Assessment

Table 1 – Summary of Evaluation Area Ratings

Summary of Evaluation Area Ratings

Screening Criteria

Site

Ex. Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Location within the Community -3 +4 +3 +5 +4 -6 +1 -3 -1

Accessibility and Parking -3 -1 +1 -2 -1 o -1 -2 -2

Site Assessment -3 +4 +3 -3 -2 o +2 -1 -1

Railroad Characteristics -1 +2 +2 -3 -3 +2 +2 o +1

Summary Rating -10 +9 +9 -3 -2 -4 +4 -6 -3

Recommended for Further 

Analysis No* Yes Yes No No No No No No

Source: Illinois Department of Transportation, 2012. High-Speed Rail Chicago to St. Louis, Alton Regional 

Multimodal Transportation Center Project, Draft Report: Alternatives Screening. May 2012.

Key: + Better than other alternatives; o Same as other alternatives; − Worse than other alternatives

*The Existing Station was retained as one of the alternatives despite the negative evaluation ratings

2.4.1 Sites Carried Forward for Further Evaluation

Existing Alton Amtrak Station (No-Build Alternative)

The existing Alton Amtrak Station site is surrounded and constrained by single-family 

residential land use and cannot be expanded to accommodate the multimodal transportation 

center concept proposed by the City of Alton and MCT without substantial land acquisition, 

and displacement. This site does not meet the purpose and need, and is not able to 

accommodate MCT buses, pedestrians, or bicycles. Due to these limitations, the existing station 

site ranked low in all but one category (Railroad Characteristics). As continued use of the 

existing station site represents the baseline No-Build Alternative, this site was advanced for 

further analysis.

Site 1 (Build Alternative)

Site 1 is ranked higher than or equal to all other sites for 3 of the 4 evaluation categories:

Location within the Community, Site Assessment and Railroad Characteristics. Site 1 is adjacent 

to established hotels, restaurants, businesses, and office buildings, providing excellent support 

services for the station. Though single-family residential land use adjoins the tracks on the west, 

no access connection from the station to the residential neighborhood would be made.

Development of this site has the potential to enhance the attractiveness of existing businesses 

and spur development of additional support services for the station. This site also has excellent 

visibility from arterial streets and has good access from IL 140 (College Avenue). MCT has 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 2-8 Environmental Assessment

expressed its support for Site 1 development as a multimodal station that integrates high-speed 

rail, buses, bicycles, parking, pedestrians and passenger vehicles. Site 1 is likely to require 

shorter utility extensions to serve a potential station than all other sites. The existing rail 

alignment and no at-grade highway crossings within the proximity of the site earned the site 

positive marks under the Railroad Characteristics category. Site 1 is located on privately owned 

land and would require additional ROW to be purchased.

Site 2 (Build Alternative)

Site 2 ranked higher than all of the eight sites in Accessibility and Parking. This is due to the 

superior internal site circulation, bicycle access and closer proximity to off-site car rental 

services. Site 2 ranked higher than all other sites except Site 1 in the Site Assessment category. 

Site 2 has more land available for initial development of the Transportation Center and has 

more potential for future expansion of the station and its facilities as ridership increases. Site 2 

ranks the same or better than all other sites for Railroad Characteristics and has no bridges or 

tunnels within proximity of the site. Site 2 is located in a former golf course and is on land 

owned by the City of Alton. The City of Alton has offered to contribute land for Site 2, therefore

no ROW would be purchased at this location.

The Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2) rated equally in the alternatives evaluation and they both 

were carried forward for further evaluation in this EA. When a final build alternative is chosen, 

it will be included in the final environmental document, which is anticipated to be a Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI). The site designations have been carried through the remainder 

of this EA.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 2-9 Environmental Assessment

2.4.2 Sites Dismissed from Further Evaluation

The synthesis evaluation for Sites 3 through 8 revealed relative disadvantages among these

alternatives that made them less desirable locations for a new multi-modal transportation 

center. Table 2 summarizes the primary reasons why each alternative site was dismissed from 

further study in the project development.

Table 2 – Dismissed Alternatives and Dismissal Factors

Site Primary Disadvantages

Site 3 Extreme limitations of site shape; small site necessitating acquisition; demolition of existing 

structures required

Site 4 Undesirable track frontage; construction of station platform over adjacent roadways;

horizontal curve makes site development difficult

Site 5 Poor accessibility and site visibility; heavily wooded site; environmental impacts; required 

utility extensions

Site 6 Double track configuration requires a grade-separated pedestrian crossing and platform 

off the property; no potential for future expansion and mixed-use development; no 

adjacent station support services; lacks pedestrian and bicycle facilities

Site 7 Limitations of site shape; limited track tangent for station and platform construction; no 

adjacent station support services; poor site visibility; location away from urban center;

limited future expansion

 Site 8 No adjacent station support services, location away from urban center, no potential for 

future expansion
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-1 Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts, and 

Mitigation

This section describes the existing resources within the project study area and analyzes the 

potential beneficial and adverse impacts to these resources from the No-Build Alternative, Build 

Alternative Site 1, and Build Alternative Site 2. The environmental resources have been 

categorized into three groups: the physical environment, ecological systems, and the human 

environment. These groups are presented in subsections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, respectively.

3.1 Physical Environment

This subsection includes a discussion of the physical environment resources potentially 

impacted by the proposed transportation center. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are 

identified.

3.1.1 Air Quality

Air pollutants are contaminants in the atmosphere. Many man-made pollutants result from the 

incomplete combustion of fuels including coal, oil, natural gas, and gasoline. The principal 

factors affecting air pollution concentrations with respect to transportation projects are traffic, 

emissions, roadway type, terrain, meteorological parameters, and ambient air quality

In accordance with the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants considered 

harmful to public health and the environment. These are carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Areas that 

do not meet the standards for these pollutants are designated as nonattainment areas and states 

must develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to improve the air quality in these areas and 

bring them into attainment by specific deadlines set by the EPA.

Federal agencies responsible for an action occurring in a nonattainment are required to 

determine if the action conforms to the applicable SIP. The U.S. EPA has developed two sets of 

conformity regulations:

General Conformity - Other projects [40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B]; and

Transportation Conformity - Transportation projects developed or approved under 

the Federal Aid Highway Program or Federal Transit Act [40 Code of Federal 

Regulation (CFR) Part 93, Subpart A].

This EA focuses on the general conformity regulations because the project is being funded by 

the FRA which is subject to general conformity.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-2 Environmental Assessment

3.1.1.1 Existing Conditions

The Transportation Center project study area is located in Madison County. Madison County is 

currently in attainment with the National and Illinois Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon 

monoxide and PM10. Madison County is also in nonattainment for 8-hour ozone. In addition, 

Madison County is in nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM25 standard, but in attainment for 

the 2006 24-hour PM25 standard. In nonattainment areas such as Madison County, levels of 

ozone precursors VOC and NOx are monitored closely for any increases in emissions.

3.1.1.2 Potential Impacts

The total annual estimated emissions generated along the high-speed rail corridor are provided 

in Appendix D. The estimated increases in emissions of each pollutant are less than the general 

conformity applicability threshold values. General conformity applicability threshold values 

for both VOC and NOx emissions are each an increase in 100 tons per year. These estimated 

increases over the entire Chicago to St. Louis corridor are 2.5 additional tons of NOx and 0.13 

tons of VOCs and are both below the general conformity thresholds.

Both Build Alternatives also include provisions for up to 230 spaces of car and 10 spaces of bus 

parking. The number of spaces considered is based on projected 2030 usage of the station. 

While the proposed project would enhance the passenger environment, the frequency of both 

bus and train service to the Transportation Center would be relatively modest. This would 

reduce the temporal concentration of motor vehicles associated with trips to and from the 

Transportation Center. It is reasonable to expect an increase of no more than 330 daily 

automobile trips to and from Alton Station as a result of this proposal. This prediction is based 

on the number of passengers expected to use the Alton Station in 2030 (see Section 1.4). 

Therefore, this proposal would not be expected to generate enough automobile traffic sufficient 

enough to cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. 

Detailed bus schedules for the proposal have not yet been developed, but a bus frequency of 2-3 

buses per hour is reasonable given the exiting bus service currently being provided at the Alton 

Amtrak Station. Given the low volumes of buses, this proposal would not be expected to 

generate enough bus traffic sufficient enough to cause or contribute to a violation of the 

NAAQS. In the future, if additional buses are scheduled to service the Transportation Center, 

MCTA would be required to conduct additional transportation conformity air quality analysis.

Either of the Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2) may result in temporary, construction-related 

increases in vehicle exhaust and emissions, and airborne particulate matter during equipment 

operation and the hauling of material. Construction dust associated with exposed soils would 

be controlled, if necessary, with the application of water and other approved dust palliatives. In 

addition, any hydrocarbons, NO2, SO2 emissions, as well as airborne particulates created by 

fugitive dust plumes would be rapidly dissipated because the location of the site and prevailing 

winds allows for good air circulation. 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-3 Environmental Assessment

Overall, there could be a short-term, temporary degradation of local air quality during 

construction activities. However, these impacts would be minor and would cease immediately 

after the construction activity is completed. Standard best management practices (BMPs) would 

be utilized during the construction process in order to minimize dust. 

3.1.2 Energy

The No-Build Alternative would not require construction. Therefore, no changes in energy 

consumption are expected.

Construction of either of the Build Alternatives, Sites 1 or 2, will require consumption of energy 

for processing materials, construction activities, and maintenance of the relocated stations. 

Energy consumption by vehicles in the vicinity of either of the two locations proposed for siting 

the new station improvements may increase during construction due to possible traffic delays.

Once the Transportation Center is operational, long-term energy savings are expected, albeit 

small, from a more energy efficient transportation center. These energy efficient aspects include 

improved building insulation, high-efficiency windows, and high-efficiency heating and 

cooling systems. With aged equipment and fixtures and no improvements assumed in the NoBuild Alternative, the existing station will continue to use energy inefficiently in comparison to 

the two Build Alternatives. The proposed improvements would increase the efficiency of 

current transportation for either of the two Build Alternative sites by providing a more balanced 

use of the overall transportation network and enhancing the passenger rail component. This 

will result in less direct and indirect vehicular energy consumption for either of the Build 

Alternative sites than the No-Build Alternative. Also, connecting the bus transit system directly 

to the train system would reduce the amount of direct energy consumption. Thus, in the long 

term, post-construction operational energy requirements should offset construction and 

maintenance energy requirements and result in a net savings in energy usage.

Passenger rail service under the No-Build Alternative and for either of the Build Alternatives

(Sites 1 and 2) would be a continuation of the existing five daily round trips between Chicago

and St. Louis. Increased ridership resulting from the normal travel growth in the Godfrey to 

East St. Louis HSR corridor that includes Alton would be accommodated by adding more cars 

to existing trains. The additional energy required to haul added weight would be offset by the 

use of more energy efficient locomotives.

3.1.3 Floodplains

3.1.3.1 Existing Conditions

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has primary responsibility for 

identifying flood-prone areas. FEMA conducted flood studies and issued mapping in 1984 for 

Madison County. All three sites are located within FEMA flood zone designation Zone C. Zone 

C is considered a moderate to low risk area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on flood 

insurance rate maps (FIRMs) as above the 500-year flood level. See Figures 3 and 4 for FIRMs for 

the project area.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-4 Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 3 – FIRM Map
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-5 Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 4 – FIRM Map
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-6 Environmental Assessment

3.1.3.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2) would not impact 100-year 

floodplains. All proposed improvements would be outside 100-year floodplain limits. It should 

be noted that no open waterways (creeks, streams, rivers, etc.) cross the study area in which 

floodplains would be designated.

3.1.4 Noise and Vibration

The assessment of the potential for the project to cause noise and vibration impacts was

accomplished by applying the procedures provided by the FRA High‐Speed Ground

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual (U.S. Department of

Transportation [USDOT] Federal Railroad Administration, October 2005). The assessment 

included evaluating noise and vibration from train operations.

The FRA screening procedure is used to identify sensitive receptors where the next level of 

analysis is appropriate. Using the FRA screening procedure approach, sensitive receptors with 

the potential for noise and vibration impacts are identified. Receptors located within the 

screening distance are then evaluated using the general assessment level of analysis. If impacts 

are still identified in the general assessment, a detailed analysis would be warranted. The 

proposed transportation center improvements were evaluated for noise and vibration impacts.

3.1.4.1 Existing and Proposed Conditions Assessment

Noise

Based on the General Assessment for the proposed improvements, noise impacts associated 

with the proposed project are not anticipated. Generally, the increase in passenger train speed 

from 79 mph in the existing year to 110 mph in the design year results in an increase in the 

rolling stock noise levels by an average of 2 dBA. As measured on the logarithmic scale, freight 

train traffic is more than two times louder than the passenger train traffic. Under the design 

year condition, passenger train traffic increases in noise level by 2 dBA due to the increase in 

train speed. The freight train traffic noise level is 11 dBA higher than passenger train noise 

levels, which is more than two times the sound level of a passenger train. Even though the 

passenger train noise level increases, it is not a level of increase that would result in a change in 

the overall noise level. With no change in the overall noise level between the existing year and 

the design year, a detailed noise analysis and a noise abatement evaluation are not warranted as 

no impacts have been identified.

The project study area encompasses three distinct locations as shown on Figure 2. The No-Build 

Alternative and Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2) are located within the Alton city limits, and as 

such fall within the FRA’s screening distance of 300 feet for urban/noisy suburban unobstructed 

areas. 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-7 Environmental Assessment

Build Alternative Site 1 is located between the on-ramp of a major roadway (Homer Adams 

Parkway), commercial establishments, semi-forested, vacant property, and a residential area.

Build Alternative Site 2 is located on a former public golf course and borders a low-density 

residential area, commercial establishments and a densely forested area.

The overall noise levels receive contributions from vehicular traffic, passenger train traffic, and 

freight train traffic. While vehicular traffic contributes to the overall noise level, the construction 

of the existing mainline track would not change vehicular traffic substantially since the existing 

traffic flow is expected to change minimally with the Build Alternatives. Therefore, vehicular 

traffic was not considered in the impact evaluation. However, due to the study area being 

within an active rail corridor, at the three municipal locations, with the trains being the 

dominant noise source, the passenger train traffic and freight train traffic were taken into 

consideration. The impact evaluation is based on the comparison of the existing train noise and 

the train noise under the No-Build (22 sensitive receptors) and Build Alternatives (the proposed 

build condition; 38 sensitive receptors at Build Alternative Site 1 and one sensitive receptor at 

Build Alternative Site 2). Table 3 lists the sensitive noise receptors for both the No-Build and 

Build Alternatives. For each noise receptor, the distance of that receptor to the center of the 

track is given, as well as the type of receptor (for example SFR denotes the receptor is a single 

family residence). There are more sensitive receptors at Site 1 because of the surrounding single 

family residential land use at that location. As you can see in the right column of Table 3, the

noise analysis concluded that there will be no impact to any sensitive receptors.

Table 3 – General Assessment Noise Analysis Results

Receptor 

No.*

RR Mile 

Post 

(Approx.)

Side of 

Track

Distance 

to 

Existing 

Track, 

feet 

(Approx.)

Receptor 

Type**

(Urban)

Project Noise

Levels, dBA Build 

Increase 

Over 

Existing, 

dBA

Allowed 

Increase 

(Moderate 

Impact), 

dBA

Impact 

Existing/ Determination

No-Build Build

E-R1 256.6 E 130 SFR 54 56 2 3 No Impact

E-R2 256.6 W 155 SFR 53 55 2 3 No Impact

E-R3 256.6 W 245 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

E-R4 256.6 W 210 SFR 51 49 -2 3 No Impact

E-R5 256.6 W 180 SFR 52 50 -2 3 No Impact

E-R6 256.6 E 205 SFR 51 49 -2 3 No Impact

E-R7 256.6 W 100 SFR 55 53 -2 3 No Impact

E-R8 256.6 E 180 SFR 52 50 -2 3 No Impact

E-R9 256.7 E 170 SFR 52 50 -2 3 No Impact

E-R10 256.7 W 125 SFR 54 52 -2 3 No Impact

E-R11 256.7 E 160 SFR 52 50 -2 3 No Impact

E-R12 256.7 W 145 SFR 53 51 -2 3 No Impact

E-R13 256.7 E 140 SFR 53 51 -2 3 No Impact

E-R14 256.7 W 95 SFR 56 54 -2 3 No Impact

E-R15 256.7 E 225 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

E-R16 256.8 W 275 SFR 49 47 -2 3 No Impact
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-8 Environmental Assessment

Receptor 

No.*

RR Mile 

Post 

(Approx.)

Side of 

Track

Distance 

to 

Existing 

Track, 

feet 

(Approx.)

Receptor 

Type**

(Urban)

Project Noise

Levels, dBA Build 

Increase 

Over 

Existing, 

dBA

Allowed 

Increase 

(Moderate 

Impact), 

dBA

Impact 

Existing/ Determination

No-Build Build

E-R17 256.8 W 250 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

E-R18 256.8 W 290 SFR 49 47 -2 3 No Impact

E-R19 256.8 W 245 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

E-R20 256.8 W 225 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

E-R21 256.8 W 150 SFR 53 51 -2 3 No Impact

E-R22 256.8 W 165 SFR 52 50 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R1 257.1 W 130 SFR 54 52 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R2 257.1 W 225 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R3 257.1 E 180 Hotel 52 50 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R4 257.1 W 155 SFR 53 51 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R5 257.1 W 80 SFR 57 55 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R6 257.1 W 85 SFR 57 55 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R7 257.1 W 280 SFR 49 47 -2 3 No Impact

 A1-R8 257.1 W 255 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R9 257.1 W 155 SFR 53 51 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R10 257.1 W 140 SFR 53 51 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R11 257.1 W 285 SFR 49 47 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R12 257.1 W 265 SFR 49 47 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R13 257.2 W 105 SFR 55 53 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R14 257.2 W 225 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R15 257.2 W 200 SFR 51 49 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R16 257.2 W 175 SFR 52 50 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R17 257.2 W 135 SFR 54 52 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R18 257.2 W 100 SFR 55 53 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R19 257.2 W 85 SFR 57 55 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R20 257.2 W 250 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R21 257.2 W 245 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R22 257.2 W 230 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R23 257.2 W 200 SFR 51 49 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R24 257.2 W 300 SFR 48 46 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R25 257.2 W 175 SFR 52 50 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R26 257.2 W 140 SFR 53 44 -9 3 No Impact

A1-R27 257.2 W 260 SFR 49 47 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R28 257.3 W 110 SFR 55 53 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R29 257.3 W 225 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R30 257.3 W 75 SFR 57 55 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R31 257.3 W 185 SFR 49 47 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R32 257.3 W 150 SFR 53 51 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R33 257.3 W 125 SFR 54 52 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R34 257.3 W 280 SFR 49 47 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R35 257.3 W 250 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R36 257.3 W 205 SFR 51 49 -2 3 No Impact

A1-R37 257.3 W 175 SFR 52 48 -4 3 No Impact

A1-R38 257.3 W 140 SFR 53 51 -2 3 No Impact

A2-R1 255.0 W 240 SFR 50 48 -2 3 No Impact

* Receptors beginning with the letter E are for the existing station, A1 is Site 1, and A2 is Site 2

**SFR = Single Family Residence;

NOTE: All receptors have a Noise Metric of Ldn.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-9 Environmental Assessment

Vibration

The screening assessment for potential vibration effects is based on land use coupled with 

general assumptions for screening distance obtained from the FRA High‐Speed Ground

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual (U.S. Department of

Transportation [USDOT] Federal Railroad Administration, October 2005). The screening 

distance for residential land uses with infrequent events along a corridor with speeds less than 

100 mph is 60 feet. No sensitive receptors were identified within this screening distance for the 

No-Build Alternative. The screening distance for residential land uses with infrequent events 

along a corridor with speeds between 100 and 200 mph is 100 feet. Four sensitive receptors were 

identified for Build Alternative Site 1 and none were identified for Build Alternative Site 2. 

Therefore, these four sensitive receptors were evaluated for potential vibration impacts.

The FRA general assessment procedures for vibration were used to predict the vibration level at 

the identified receptor locations. Table 4 summarizes the general assessment analysis for 

vibration.

Table 4 – Ground-borne Vibration General Assessment (Passenger Trains)

Receptor 

No.*

Dist. to 

Existing 

Track, 

feet

Existing 

Vibration 

Level,VdB1

Proposed

Vibration 

Level, VdB1

Increase in 

Vibration, 

VdB1

FRA Criteria 

(Infrequent 

Events), VdB1

Impact 

Determination

A1-R5 80 72 75 3 80 No

A1-R6 85 72 75 3 80 No

A1-R19 85 72 75 3 80 No

A1-R30 75 73 76 3 80 No

1 VdB is a logarithmic scaling of vibration magnitude

*A1 receptors are associated with Site 1

3.1.4.2 Potential Impacts

Noise

The No-Build Alternative would not create any change in noise from the existing conditions 

since there would be no change in passenger train operations. None of the noise levels at the 22 

sensitive receptors, in the vicinity of the existing station, would change under the No-Build 

Alternative.

Build Alternative Sites 1 and 2 would serve existing and future rail and bus service. However, 

there would be no measureable noise impacts on the 39 sensitive receptors (38 receptors at Site 1 

and 1 receptor at Site 2) since the current five daily trains traveling between Chicago and St. 

Louis would continue to operate as they currently do. However, the freight train noise is the 

dominant noise source in the project study area and, therefore, the overall noise levels would 

remain similar since no changes in freight noise levels are expected between the No-Build and 

Build Alternative scenarios.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-10 Environmental Assessment

There would also be an increase in noise from buses and cars since the sites would have both 

parking facilities and bus parking. The noise impacts from busses and cars are expected to be 

small since only 18 trains would service this station daily. By 2030, there are expected to be 

119,777 passengers using Alton Station per year, which averages out to approximately 330

passengers per day.

Any temporary impacts would cease immediately after the construction activity is completed.

Trucks and machinery used for construction produce noise which may affect some land uses 

and activities during the construction period. Residents adjacent to the project study area would 

at some time experience perceptible construction noise from implementation of the project. To 

minimize or eliminate the effect of construction noise on these receptors, time restrictions will 

be used to limit the period of exposure to construction noise.

As stipulated in the Illinois Department of Transportation’s Standard Specifications for Road 

and Bridge Construction, adopted January 1, 2012, Article 107.35 - Construction Noise 

Restrictions, the following standards would be followed during construction activities. 

All engines and engine driven equipment used for hauling or construction would be 

equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained to 

prevent excessive or unusual noise. 

Construction within 1000 feet (300 m) of an occupied residence, motel, hospital, or similar 

receptor shall be confined to the period beginning at 7 a.m. and ending at 10:00 p.m. This 

time regulation should not apply to sawing contraction joints, as required in Article 420.05, 

maintenance or operation of safety and traffic control devices such as barricades, signs, and 

lighting, or to construction of an emergency nature. 

Any machine or device or part thereof which is regulated by or becomes regulated by 

Federal or State of Illinois noise standards shall conform to those standards. Such 

equipment shall be operated as designated above.

Vibration

Since there are no sensitive receptors within the screening distance for vibration, there are no 

impacts.

Under the Build Alternative Site 1, the four sensitive receptors within the vibration screening 

distance are not anticipated to have ground-borne vibration impacts since the calculated 

vibration levels of 75, 75, 75, and 76 VdB (A1-R5, A1-R6, A1-R19, and A1-R30, respectively) are 

below the FRA criteria of 80 VdB.

Since there are no sensitive receptors within the screening distance at Build alternative Site 2, 

there are no impacts.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-11 Environmental Assessment

3.1.5 Agriculture

3.1.5.1 Existing Conditions

Agriculture is a prominent land use in the rural areas of Madison County, but it is not a 

dominant feature at the locations of the No-Build Alternative or the two Build Alternatives 

(Sites 1 and 2) since they are within non-rural areas. There are no agricultural areas within the 

city limits of Alton. The No-Build Alternative and the two Build Alternatives are within the city 

limits and there are no agricultural areas within 2,000 feet of the three sites.

3.1.5.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not impact any agricultural area. Build Alternatives (Sites 1 

and 2) would not impact any agricultural area or any prime farmland since urban or built-up 

areas of the soils listed as prime farmland are not considered prime farmland (as described in 

the Soil Survey of Madison County, Illinois, 2004).

3.1.6 Tree Resources

3.1.6.1 Existing Conditions

No trees are located within the limits of the No-Build Alternative. However, large stands of 

trees are located at each of the two Build Alternative sites as discussed below.

At Build Alternative Site 1, it is estimated that most of the approximate 6-acre footprint of the 

proposed improvements consists of thick woodlands. Most of the trees line the southern 

perimeter adjoining the existing railroad tracks, some along the eastern property line, and along 

the drainage swale that separates the site from commercial properties along the western 

boundary. The dominant tree types were identified as follows: black locust (Robinia 

pseudoacacia), black walnut (Juglans nigra), American elm (Ulmus americana), cottonwood

(Populus deltoides), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), and white ash (Fraxinus americana).

At Build Alternative Site 2, it is estimated that 8 percent of the 21.41-acre footprint of the former 

golf course area is covered by trees, the thickest areas being along the existing railroad tracks on 

the north perimeter and in the northeast section of the site along the eastern property line. The 

remaining locations of trees are found in small groves or pockets and in narrow, elongated 

stretches framing the fairways of the golf course. The dominant tree types were identified as 

follows: white oak (Quercus alba), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), 

Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), white pine (Pinus strobus), and box elder (Acer negundo).

The proposed improvements would occur primarily within areas that have been historically 

undeveloped. Build Alternative Site 1 has no history of prior developments and is essentially 

covered with grasses, shrubs, and mature trees. Build Alternative Site 2 was an early homestead 

property, and was later used as a poor farm in the 1930s before being converted into a golf 

course owned by the City of Alton. The trees at the golf course were strategically planted over 

the years for ornamental purposes.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-12 Environmental Assessment

3.1.6.2 Potential Impacts

Build Alternative Site 1 and Build Alternative Site 2 would both require the removal of trees. 

The exact number and location of the potentially impacted trees would depend on final site 

plans for the construction footprint. Build Alternative Site 2 has the potential for more impacts 

to trees exceeding 8 inches in diameter (diameter at breast height, DBH) compared to Build 

Alternative Site 1.

3.1.6.3 Mitigation

Since there are no proposed improvements for the No-Build Alternative, mitigation is not 

required. Trees exceeding 8 inches (DBH) would need to be removed as necessary for the 

proposed improvements at both Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2). As mentioned in Section 2.1, 

the entire property for Site 2 is not being developed as part of this EA’s proposal. 

Mitigation for tree removal is not part of the Transportation Center Project. Landscape trees 

would be included as part of the site landscaping plan to be developed by the City of Alton

during detailed site plan preparation.

3.2 Ecological Systems

This section describes the ecological systems affected by the proposed project. Included in this 

section is a discussion of the water quality and resources, threatened and endangered species, 

and special lands as they relate to the Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2). Where appropriate, 

mitigation measures are identified. The inventory of environmental resources may be found in 

Figures 5 and 6.

3.2.1 Wetlands and Waters of the US

Wetlands are defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) as:

“Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Title 33 Code 

of Federal Regulations Section 328.3 (b) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act).

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands”, requires federal agencies to avoid, to the

extent practicable, short and long‐term impacts associated with the destruction or modification 

of wetlands. More specifically, it directs federal agencies to avoid new construction in wetlands 

unless there is no practical alternative. In addition, it states that where wetlands cannot be 

avoided, the proposed action must include all practical measures to minimize harm to the 

wetlands.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-13 Environmental Assessment

Figure 5 – Environmental Inventory
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-13 Environmental Assessment

Figure 6 – Environmental Inventory
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-14 Environmental Assessment

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403) and Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act (33 USC 1344) authorize permits for placement of structures, dredged, or fill material 

into the “Waters of the U.S.” All public and private projects must obtain permits. The most 

likely types of permits in the project study area would be for filling wetlands and streams. 

Impacts to wetlands and Waters of the United States must be mitigated. While mitigation 

requirements under Section 404 and Section 10 are the same for developers and IDOT regarding 

wetland loss and replacement, under the Illinois Interagency Wetland Protection Act of 1989 (20 

ILCS 830) and Environmental Protection Act in the Illinois Compiled Statutes (415 ILCS 5), 

IDOT also must mitigate for isolated and jurisdictional wetlands.

3.2.1.1 Existing Conditions

Wetlands in the project study area were identified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping combined with aerial photography 

review and field confirmation. The project study area is located within the Peruque-Piasa

watershed, hydrologic unit code (HUC) 07110009, which is within the Upper Mississippi River 

Basin. The wetland delineation method assigns to plant species a rating that reflects the 

fundamental conservatism that the species exhibits for natural habitats. A native species that 

exhibits specific adaptations to a narrow spectrum of the environment is given a high rating. 

Conversely, an introduced, ubiquitous species that exhibits adaptation to a broad spectrum of 

environmental variables is given a low rating. Utilizing this method, a Floristic Quality Index 

(FQI) was assigned to each wetland. The FQI is an indication of native vegetative quality for an 

area: generally 1-19 indicates low vegetative quality; 20-35 indicates high vegetative quality,

and above 35 indicates “Natural Area” quality. Wetlands with a FQI of 20 or greater are 

considered high quality aquatic resources. 

In the fall of 2012 a field visit was conducted to perform wetland delineations for Build 

Alternative Site 1 and Site 2. No wetlands are located at the existing station site (No-Build 

Alternative). Build Alternative Site 1 has one wetland area at the toe of slope near a culvert 

under Homer Adams Parkway. An area associated with the West Fork Wood River located just 

east of Build Alternative Site 1 and along Homer Adams Parkway, is designated per NWI 

mapping as riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded (R2UBH). 

The Wood River itself is located within approximately 1,500 feet of the eastern boundary of 

Build Alternative Site 1, and runs in a north-south configuration. Build Alternative Site 2 has 

four wetland areas near the tracks and near an unnamed creek flowing through the property.

Refer to Table 5 for a table of the wetlands and their characteristics.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-15 Environmental Assessment

Table 5 – Wetlands and their Characteristics in Delineated Areas

Site* Acres

Dominant 

Vegetation

(all strata)

Native 

FQI

Native 

Mean 

C

Mapped 

Soil 

Type

Isolated 

Y/N

Cowardin

Classification1

ASA1 0.064 Typha angustifolia 2.88 1.66 79f Y PEMAd

ASA2

A

0.72 Agrostis gigantea 0 0 79f Y R2UBHX

ASA2

B

0.045 Poa trivalis 0 0 79f Y PEMAd

ASA2

C

0.0221 Lonicera maackii 6.71 3 79f Y PEMAd

ASA2

D

0.041 Agrostis gigantea 0 0 79f Y R2UBHX

1PEMAd = Palustrine Emergent Temporarily Wet Partly Drained

 R2UBHX=Riverine Lower Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom Permanent Excavated

*ASA1 = Build Alternative Site 1, ASA2 = Build Alternative Site 2

3.2.1.2 Potential Impacts

Under the implementing regulations of the Illinois Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989 

(IWPA), impacts to wetlands having an FQI rating of 20 or greater require 5.5 to 1.0 mitigation 

ratios. No high quality wetland areas will be directly affected by the proposed project.

Detailed site planning would determine the exact location of project elements in relation to the 

wetlands. The potential impacts to wetlands, assuming total development of the station 

property, would be 0.064 acres for Build Alternative Site 1 and 0.828 acres for Build Alternative 

Site 2. Impact to these wetland areas would be minimized to the extent practicable as part of the 

site planning, with measures taken during construction to protect those where impact is 

avoidable. Additionally, the proposal requires action in regard to EO 11990, which covers 

wetland coordination, including any mitigation and permit requirements for Federal agencies.

IDOT, UPRR, and USACE have established agreements for the corresponding replacement 

ratios for wetlands. Any permits required by the USACE or IDNR would be secured prior to the 

start of construction.

3.2.2 Water Quality and Water Resources

This subsection provides an overview of surface and groundwater resources and the water 

quality of those resources along the project corridor. It focuses on resources with the potential to 

be affected by the alternatives.

Overall, the project is not expected to impact groundwater and would not be likely to adversely 

affect surface waters. Appropriate Best Management Practices would be utilized prior to, 

during, and after construction as part of the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the 

project.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-16 Environmental Assessment

3.2.2.1 Existing Conditions

Surface Water Resources

This region of southwestern Illinois lies within the Upper Mississippi River Basin; but locally, 

and within the study project limits, is designated as the Peruque-Piasa watershed (HUC 

07110009) with a drainage area of 662 square miles. The nearest major water body to any of the 

three sites, No-Build Alternative and Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2), is the West Fork of the 

Wood River, with two local streams designated as Coal Branch Creek and Black Creek, both of 

which drain into the Wood River. The confluence of the Wood River and the Mississippi River 

is several miles to the south. In addition to Madison County, the Peruque-Piasa watershed

encompasses a portion of Missouri across the Mississippi River, in St. Charles and Warren 

Counties. In terms of proximity, Wood River is located one-half to three-quarters of a mile eastnortheast of the project study area, covering the Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2) and the NoBuild Alternative. The Alton Water Treatment Facility draws surface water from the Mississippi 

River for treatment for drinking water.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that do not meet 

applicable water quality standards and submit a list of impaired waters to the USEPA for 

review and approval. The No-Build Alternative and Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2) lay

entirely within the Peruque-Piasa watershed and contain no 303(d) listed waters, as set forth in 

the federal Clean Water Act and the Water Quality Planning and Management regulation at 40 

CFR Part 130. 

At Build Alternative Site 2, the unnamed creek is a component of a pending restoration project 

under a recently awarded Illinois Green Infrastructure grant to the City of Alton.

Groundwater Resources

Groundwater quality is dependent in large part on the physical and chemical composition of 

overlying geologic materials. Groundwater occurs in water-bearing units called aquifers. In 

Illinois, aquifers are classified as sand-and-gravel aquifers, shallow bedrock aquifers, and deep 

bedrock aquifers. Within the area covering the three sites, there are no principal shallow sandand-gravel aquifers. There are no sole source aquifers in Illinois. No regulated groundwater 

recharge areas are within the area covering the three sites. Effective since 1999, a local ordinance 

prohibits the use of groundwater for potable water supply. Due to groundwater quality 

concerns and potential for well contamination, the City of Alton utilizes surface water, not 

groundwater, for its municipal drinking water. The Illinois EPA currently has a groundwater 

protection planning program in place for the greater Alton region, specifically assisting the 

villages of East Alton and Bethalto.

A review of data obtained from the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) Wells and Borings 

Database shows no well or boring locations within 200 feet of the area covering the three sites.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-17 Environmental Assessment

3.2.2.2 Potential Impacts

Surface Water

The No-Build Alternative would not impact the Wood River or its water quality since there 

would be no change from existing conditions. Build Alternative Sites 1 and 2 would provide

stormwater collection inlets and catch basins that divert runoff from rain events from the 

impervious surfaces into drainage infrastructure. This stormwater would discharge into a 

closed drainage system that would outfall to the City of Alton’s 18-inch existing stormwater 

sewer system along College Avenue (for Build Alternative Site 1) and to Homer Adams 

Parkway (for Build Alternative Site 2). There are no existing stormwater sewer systems in place

at either Build Alternative Site 1 or Site 2. The increase of stormwater entering the existing 

system along these two established arterial roadways due to the proposed improvements 

would be negligible, detained in the proposed storm sewer, and restricted as to not exceed the 

existing rate entering the Mississippi River. Therefore, Build Alternative Sites 1 and 2 would not 

have a measureable impact on the Mississippi River water quality.

Under both Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2) surface waters would be protected during 

construction through the use and enforcement of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, and 

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits (NPDES). These permits employ 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as silt fences, check dams, and appropriately sized 

sediment basins. Following construction, permanent BMPs would be installed to further reduce 

impacts such as permanent seeding and the use of native vegetation incorporated into the final 

landscape design.

Groundwater

The No-Build Alternative would not have any impact on groundwater resources. Under the 

Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2), it is not anticipated that the planned improvements for either 

location would have any impact on groundwater resources.

No public supply wells are located on either site, nor does either site fall within the 200-foot 

well protection setback zone of any public supply wells. The HSR trains will not transport any 

freight that may be a potential contaminant of groundwater resources with the exception of the 

on-board fuel and other petroleum-based products. The UPRR has an established Spill 

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan to address any potential spill from a locomotive. 

Roadside ditches, curbs, and gutters should assist in confining any chemical or fuel spills.

3.2.2.3 Mitigation

Temporarily impacted areas would be restored following construction. Permanent impacts, if 

any, would require proper sizing of hydraulic structures and compensatory storage where 

required. The quantity and location of any proposed hydraulic structures would be finalized in 

site plans prior to construction and any necessary permits would be obtained at that time.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-18 Environmental Assessment

Permits

A local stormwater permit would be required for all hydraulic structures. A permit would also 

be required from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Office of Water 

Resources (OWR) for all structure replacements/extensions. Culverts located within the study 

area would comply with the non-notification Statewide Permit requirements.

3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, provides protection for species 

that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

3.2.3.1 Existing Conditions

Threatened and endangered species potentially occurring in the project study area were 

identified from information supplied by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR, 

2012) and USFWS Section 7 Consultation (USFWS, 2012).

Agency records and databases were reviewed to determine if federal or state-listed threatened 

or endangered species are known to exist in the project study area.

Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 Consultation form and database 

review, seven federal threatened and endangered species were listed as having the potential to 

occur within Madison County. According to the Section 7 form guidelines, no further 

consultation was warranted as no effect to threatened or endangered species or potential habitat 

was identified for the No-Build and Build Alternative sites.

Using the IDNR's Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool (EcoCAT), a review of the Illinois 

Natural Heritage Database was conducted for each of the project study areas. The EcoCAT

Natural Resources results dated August 22, 2012, for the existing station (No-Build Alternative)

and Build Alternatives (Site 1 and Site 2) identified no record of State-listed threatened or 

endangered plant or animal species, Illinois Natural Area Inventory Sites, dedicated Illinois 

Nature Preserves, or registered Land and Water Reserves in the vicinity of each of the project 

locations. See Appendix B for Agency Coordination and Consultation.

3.2.3.2 Potential Impacts 

Based on determinations that there are no suitable habitats for listed species within the project 

boundary limits, as presented in the USFWS Section 7 consultation, and EcoCAT responses, the 

No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2) are not expected to impact 

threatened and endangered plant or animal species.

3.2.4 Special Lands

Using the IDNR's EcoCAT, a review of the Illinois Natural Heritage Database was conducted 

for each of the project study areas. The EcoCAT search for the existing station (No-Build 

Alternative, and Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2), identified no record of State-listed threatened 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-19 Environmental Assessment

or endangered species, Illinois Natural Area Inventory Sites, dedicated Illinois Nature 

Preserves, or registered Land and Water Reserves in the vicinity of each of the project locations.

The EcoCAT response was received on Aug 22, 2012, for the No-Build and Build Alternatives 

and disclosed no impacts to Special Lands.

3.2.5 4(f) Properties

An inventory of 4(f) properties within 1,000 feet of the project study area was conducted.

Section 4(f) properties include publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife or 

waterfowl refuges, or any publicly or privately owned historic site listed or eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic Places.

3.2.5.1 Existing Conditions

Build Alternative Site 1 is an undeveloped site with no existing buildings, located between the 

UPRR tracks, IDOT right-of-way, and a commercial area occupied by restaurants, hotels, 

businesses and office buildings. No historic sites were identified in the vicinity. The site itself 

has no identified historic characteristics or context and has not been nominated for or 

determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

For Build Alternative Site 2, though part of the site was a “poor farm” up to the purchase of the 

property as a golf course in the 1930s, it is not listed as a historic property by the IHPA, nor has 

it been nominated for or determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. Additionally, an 

archaeological site on the property has been identified as Early Farming period (1830-1850),

with a minor Modern Farming period component, and may qualify for NRHP eligibility. The 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was provided results of the testing program (in 

March 2012) and ruled that further analysis would be necessary to determine historic eligibility.

In addition, Build Alternative Site 2 includes a portion of land that was previously the Robert T. 

Wadlow Golf Course, a public course owned by the City of Alton. The City of Alton has 

pursued actions to enable development on all or part of the property occupied by the golf 

course. On April 22, 2012, the golf course was closed when the private operator, contracted by 

the City of Alton, became insolvent. Following this closure, the City of Alton and the 

HeartLands Conservancy completed a citywide parks plan which recommended removing the 

golf course site from the park system. After public hearings on this proposal, the City Council of 

the City of Alton, through ordinance on October 26, 2012, removed the site from the park 

system and reclassified the land from a conservation district to that of a Planned Unit 

Development (PUD). The PUD provides an outline for a mixed-use redevelopment of the site, 

including provisions for an intercity rail station. As a result of this council action, the land 

comprising and surrounding Site 2 is not considered an area of 4(f) concern.

3.2.5.2 Potential Impacts

Neither the No-Build Alternative nor the two Build Alternative sites would use or affect 4(f) 

property; therefore, the project would not use lands subject to the requirements of Section 4(f) of 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-20 Environmental Assessment

the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The approximately six acres of right-of-way that 

is to be acquired for planned improvements to Site 1 is on privately owned land.

Site 2 is a former golf course that has been removed from the Alton parks system and rezoned 

in 2012 and is not considered a Section 4(f) property. The site plan for Site 2 was modified to 

move the proposed access road in order to avoid the archaeological site; therefore it would not 

be impacted by construction activities.

3.2.6 Aesthetic Environment and Scenic Resources

Aesthetic environment and scenic resources are the natural and human-made features of a 

landscape that characterize its form, line, texture, and color. This section describes the existing 

landscape and vistas in the project area and identifies potential impacts on visual resources for 

the proposed alternatives.

3.2.6.1 Existing Conditions

Under the No-Build Alternative, the current visual environment for the existing structure, 

lighting and landscaping would remain unchanged. Build Alternative Site 1 is located in an 

undeveloped land parcel, with some open green space and some tree canopies but is next to an 

intersection of a major road and a highway, and is adjacent to commercial development. Build 

Alternative Site 1 is also within view of a residential neighborhood. Build Alternative Site 2 is 

located on a former golf course. The viewshed for Build Alternative Site 2 contains a mix of 

mostly open green space and some tree canopies. Build Alternative Site 2 was a planned 

landscape with numerous old-growth trees. Build Alternative Site 2 borders a road with 

commercial land use and a residential neighborhood.

3.2.6.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not affect visual resources.

Under the Build Alternative for Sites 1 or 2, the new Transportation Center, as well as changes 

in site lighting or landscaping at the new locations, may result in impacts to local visual 

receptors. The construction of a station, platform and bus and car parking at Build Alternative 

Site 1 could add visual interest for the commercialized area. The neighborhood opposite the 

UPRR tracks could potentially have its tree canopy vista impacted, dependent upon the number 

of trees removed. The construction of a station, platform, bus parking, parking lot, and access

road at Build Alternative Site 2 could potentially negatively impact the visual resources, as the 

site is currently open green space with numerous mature trees. The neighborhood adjoining the 

property could potentially also have their visual resources affected by a reduction in tree 

canopy. The proposed improvements for either Build Alternative Site 1 or 2 would be 

constructed by incorporating appropriate landscaped, structural, and railway design in such a 

manner as to limit the potential for any significant or adverse long term impacts to the existing 

visual qualities at either of the Build Alternative project areas.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-21 Environmental Assessment

3.3 Human Environment

Madison County is designated as a non-metropolitan area and is primarily rural. The Madison 

County Planning & Zoning Comprehensive Plan (2009) contains data and analyses on Madison 

County’s population, the local economy, land use, zoning, housing, environmental issues and 

infrastructure. The Plan contains recommendations for ways to manage growth in the county. 

The Madison County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006) prepared by the Madison County Planning 

and Development Department in cooperation with the Madison County Emergency 

Management Department and representatives of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Steering 

Committee addresses long-term risk reduction/elimination to human life and property from 

hazards in adherence to FEMA goals and objectives pursuant to requirements of the Federal 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). In addition, IDOT coordinates transportation 

planning activities with local agencies in Madison County. The Illinois State Transportation 

Plan was completed in December 2007.

The City of Alton is a part of the Metro-East region of the Greater St. Louis metropolitan area in 

Southern Illinois. Metro East is a region in Illinois that comprises the eastern suburbs of St. 

Louis, Missouri. It encompasses five Southern Illinois counties, including Madison County, in 

the St. Louis Metropolitan Statistical Area. The Metro East is the second largest urban area in 

Illinois after the Chicago metropolitan area. The City of Alton has a Development and Housing 

department, which includes Building and Zoning offices. The City of Alton does not have its 

own municipal public transportation but is a part of a regional service, the MCT system.

3.3.1 Transportation

This subsection summarizes the transportation impacts expected under the No-Build and both 

Build Alternatives. 

3.3.1.1 Existing conditions

Under the current schedules, there are about 15 trains per day operating over this section of 

line, including 10 Amtrak trains (Lincoln Service between Chicago and St. Louis; and the Texas 

Eagle, providing service between Chicago and St. Louis, and then southwest to Little Rock, AR, 

Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX, and other points west to Los Angeles, CA) and five UPRR freight trains (a 

combination of local and through trains).

3.3.1.2 Potential Impacts

Under the No-Build Alternative, there would be no changes to the Alton street layout and, 

therefore, no changes to vehicular operations on College Avenue, the main access road to the 

train station.

Under the Build Alternative for Site 1, with the only entry to this site via an access road 

(Crossroads Court) from College Avenue, it is anticipated that existing traffic signals at this 

intersection would be slightly modified to accommodate an increase in traffic volumes and 

turning movements to the Transportation Center. Impacts to the existing vehicular operations 

resulting from the proposed improvements under Build Alternative Site 1 would be minimal, 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-22 Environmental Assessment

utilizing existing infrastructure and roadways. The residential area to the north and east of the 

site would not have a direct road access to the train station site.

Under the Build Alternative for Site 2, with the only entry to this site via an access roadway, 

Golf Road, from a main thoroughfare, IL 3 (Homer Adams Parkway), it is anticipated that the 

existing traffic signals at this intersection would be modified to accommodate an increase in 

traffic volumes and turning movements accessing the Transportation Center. The proposed 

improvements would include widening Golf Road from its current 2-lane configuration. 

However, impacts to existing vehicular operations resulting from the proposed improvements 

under Build Alternative Site 2 would be minimal, utilizing existing infrastructure and 

roadways.

There are no proposed changes in the number of Amtrak trains in the project study area. As a 

result, the No-Build Alternative is not projected to divert additional travelers from other modes. 

The build alternatives are projected to increase ridership over time. The number of passengers 

using the Alton Station by 2030 is expected to more than double that of the existing station 

facility.

3.3.2 Land Use

The No-Build Alternative would not involve the relocations of any residences or business. No 

residential or business relocations are proposed for the Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2). Build 

Alternative Site 1 would require purchasing approximately six acres of additional ROW. Rightof-way purchases, if needed, would be conducted following the Uniform Relocation Assistance 

and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 (Uniform Relocation Act) (42 USC 4601-4655), as 

amended, applies to all federal or federally assisted activities that involve the acquisition of real 

property. 

Build Alternative Site 2 would require additional land outside of the UPRR ROW. However, the 

City of Alton would contribute the required land to UPRR for the proposed stationhouse;

therefore no ROW would be purchased.

Schools, medical centers, and fire and police stations serve the daily needs of residents near the 

project study area. Streets around the proposed transportation center sites provide access to and 

from educational and medical facilities and play a critical role in providing these services, and 

in serving the health, safety and general welfare of those who use them. There would be no 

alterations to the existing street grid, except for short-term temporary closures, so impacts to 

these services and facilities would be minimal.

3.3.3 Demographics

Each of the project study areas for the three alternatives, No-Build and Build Alternatives Site 1 

and Site 2, are located within the corporate limits of the City of Alton in Madison County. As a 

result of the small project study areas, the demographic data presented below is only for 

Madison County and the City of Alton.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-23 Environmental Assessment

3.3.3.1 Existing Conditions

Population and Households

Madison County is a mixture of agricultural, commercial and industrial uses unlike nearby

Jersey and Macoupin Counties to the north (along the UPRR rail line), which are primarily 

agricultural. Entering Madison County, the rail line traverses a more urban environment

through Godfrey, Alton, East Alton and East St. Louis (Illinois) before crossing the Mississippi 

River and into St. Louis, Missouri. The 2010 population density in Madison County was 376

persons per square mile. As a comparison, Macoupin County (30 miles to the northeast) had an 

estimated 2010 population density of only 55.4 persons per square mile, which the UPRR rail 

line passes through. The population for the state of Illinois and Madison County from 2000 to 

2010 rose by 3.3 and 4.0 percent, respectively, while the City of Alton actually dropped by 8.6%

percent for the same time period as shown in Table 6.

Table 6 – Population and Households 2000 and 2010 Census

Community

Population Households

2000 

Census

2010 

Census

Percent 

Change 

(2000-2010)

2000 

Census

2010 

Census

Percent 

Change 

(2000-2010)

State of 

Illinois 12,419,293 12,830,632 3.3 4,591,779 4,836,972 5.3

Madison 

County 258,941 269,282 4.0 101,953 106,867 4.6

City of Alton 30,496 27,865 -8.6 12,518 12,101 -3.4

Source: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Bureau of the Census – and Madison County and City of Alton websites

Racial and Ethnic Composition

Table 7 shows there are sizable concentrations of minority populations in Madison County, and 

more so in the City of Alton. A composite of all ethnic races per the 2010 census represent 16.4

percent of the total population for Madison County. By comparison, a composite of all ethnic 

races per the 2010 census for the City of Alton represent 30.8 percent, almost one-third of the

population. This more diverse population mix is indicative of an urban environment.

The number of households in Illinois increased 5.3 percent during the same ten years. This 

percentage is higher than Madison County (4.6 percent) and the City of Alton, which actually 

dropped by 3.4 percent during the same ten year period. Table 7 indicates that minority 

populations in the City of Alton are almost double that than in Madison County.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-24 Environmental Assessment

Table 7 – Population by Race and Ethnicity 2010

Community White

Black/

African 

America

n

Am. 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian Pacific 

Islander Other

Two or 

More 

Races

Hispanic 

or Latino 

(of any 

race)

State of Illinois 9,177,877 1,866,414 43,963 586,934 4,050 861,412 289,982 2,027,578

Madison 

County 237,641 21,235 659 2,254 7 2,427 4,959 7,313

City of Alton 21,169 5,804 79 124 7 889 1,031 661

Source: 2010 U.S. Bureau of the Census – and Madison County and City of Alton websites

Economics and Employment

As previously mentioned, Madison County is a mixture of agricultural, commercial and 

industrial land uses. Two of the top three employers in the county are manufacturing – steel 

and brass industries. Though agriculture is known to be an important producer for the county, 

none of the leading employers are listed as “agriculture” per se. Outside of government, 

Madison County employees, the top employers are in manufacturing, health care and 

education. Tables 8 and 9 show the number of employees by trade, indicating broader diversity

throughout the county and city, which include other industries such as clerical, sales, office, 

financial, insurance, professional, service and construction.

Table 8 – Employment by Major Industry, Madison County (2009)

Industry Percent in County

Education and Health 22.1

Trade, Transportation and 

Utilities

21.0

Manufacturing 12.8

Leisure and Hospitality 10.1

Professional Business Services 9.0

Financial Services 6.6

Construction 6.3

Other Services 5.1

Public Administration 4.3

Information 2.0

Agriculture and Mining 0.7

 Source: Madison County Economic Development and St. Louis Regional Chamber & Growth Association
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-25 Environmental Assessment

Table 9 – Employment by Major Industry, City of Alton (2009)

Industry Number of 

Employees

Percent in 

County

Sales and Office 3,316 26.08

Professional and Related 2,717 21.37

Service 2,243 17.64

Production, Transportation and 

Material Moving

1,975 15.53

Management, Business and Financial 

Operations

1,417 11.14

Construction, Extraction and 

Maintenance

1,025 8.06

Farming, Fishing and Forestry 24 0.19

 Source: Alton Economic Development Department and St. Louis Regional Chamber & Growth Association

Income and Wages

Table 10 shows 1999 (from Census 2000) and estimated 2010 median household incomes for the 

State of Illinois, Madison County and City of Alton. The percentage changes during this period 

of time are relatively similar, all of them gaining: State of Illinois by 29.2 percent, Madison 

County by 25 percent, and City of Alton by 22 percent. However, the data indicates the median 

household income for the City of Alton is increasing at a slightly slower percentage rate than it 

is for Madison County and the State of Illinois.

Table 10 – Median Household Income, 1999 (Census 2000) and 2010 (Estimated)

Community

Median Household Income

1999 (2000 Census) 2010 Estimated Percent Change 

(1999-2010)

State of Illinois $46,635 $60,254 29.2

Madison County $41,541 $51,941 25.0

City of Alton $31,213 $38,073 22.0

Source: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Bureau of the Census – and Madison County and City of Alton websites

3.3.3.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative and the two Build Alternatives are not expected to have an adverse 

effect on racial and ethnic distribution at any of these locations. Construction of either Build 

Alternative Site 1 or Site 2 is expected to promote both the short- and long-term creation and 

preservation of jobs while promoting new opportunities during their construction.

3.3.4 Environmental Justice and Title VI

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 addresses discrimination issues associated with federally 

funded projects. No groups or individuals have been or will be excluded from participation in 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-26 Environmental Assessment

public involvement activities, denied the benefit of the project, or subjected to discrimination in 

any way on the basis of race, color, age, sex, national origin, disability, or religion.

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and 

Low-Income Populations (EO 1994), directs federal agencies to "promote nondiscrimination in 

federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and provide 

minority and low-income communities access to public information on, and an opportunity for 

public participation in matters relating to human health or the environment." 

The Department of Transportation (the Department or DOT) issued an update to Departmental 

Order 5610.2(a) (Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations) (originally published April 15, 1997) on May 2, 2012. The Order updates 

and clarifies environmental justice procedures for the Department in response to the 

Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Justice signed by heads of Federal agencies 

on August 4, 2011, DOT’s revised environmental justice strategy issued on March 2, 2012, and 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, dated February 11, 1994.

The No-Build Alternative would not have disproportionate adverse impacts on minority or low 

impact populations. 

Neither of the Build Alternative Sites, Site 1 or Site 2, would result in property acquisitions or 

relocations from minority or low-income residents or populations in the project study area nor 

result in disproportionately adverse impacts to minority or low-income residents or 

populations.

3.3.5 Public Health and Safety

The No-Build Alternative would not impact public health and safety as it relates to emergency 

response agencies. Fire, police and medical response time would not be affected as the existing 

train station would not be replaced with construction of a new station and related 

improvements.

The Build Alternatives (Sites 1 and 2) would also not impact public health and safety because 

there would be no change in the existing traffic flow patterns due to the proposed 

improvements. IDOT and UPRR would coordinate with emergency service providers in order 

to mitigate any potential impacts due to construction activity conflicts.

3.3.6 Hazardous Materials

The hazardous materials discussion in the 2004 ROD did not include reference to the Alton

Amtrak Station. A Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment (PESA) includes an electronic 

search of local, state and federal environmental databases at each of the alternatives performed 

by FirstSearch Technology Corporation (FirstSearch). The results of the database searches for 

each alternative are provided in Appendix A, however, the final PESA is not included in 

Appendix A but would be completed prior to construction. The databases and search distances 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-27 Environmental Assessment

were performed in accordance with the U.S. EPA’s All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) regulations 

and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-05 Standard Practice for 

Environmental Site Assessments. The PESA, when available, will conform to the methods 

described in the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Memorandum #04-09, dated July 

22, 2004 entitled “Special Waste Procedures for Local Highway Improvements.” In addition, the 

Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) Open File Series January 2012 Publication entitled “A 

Manual for Conducting Preliminary Environmental Site Assessments for Illinois Department of 

Transportation Infrastructure Projects” will be adhered to in the PESA. The evaluation of 

potential adverse environmental impacts contained in the PESA include observations, historical 

records research and review of database information considered critical for each of the 

alternatives selected for further study.

3.3.6.1 Existing Conditions

A regulatory database report was prepared for each of the No-Build Alternative (existing 

station) and two Build Alternatives, Sites 1 and 2, in advance of completion of the PESA. Results 

of the database search for the existing station indicate there are no ASTM databases listed 

within the critical search distance of 1⁄4 mile for the length of the environmental footprint. 

Results of the database search for Build Alternative 1 indicate there are no ASTM databases 

listed within the critical search distance of 1⁄4 mile of the perimeter of the proposed 

improvements. For Build Alternative 2, the boundaries of the former golf course in which the 

limits of the proposed improvements for this alternative fall within, were established as the

overall perimeter for the database search. Results of the database search for Build Alternative 2

out to the critical distance of 1⁄4 mile from the boundary limits identify four ASTM database 

listings: one small quantity RCRA generator facility, one LUST facility, and two UST facilities. 

The LUST facility is listed as being “closed” (No Further Action/No Further Remediation”) per 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) ruling. No other ASTM databases are listed for 

any of the alternative sites in the FirstSearch reports.

De minimis conditions, as used by ASTM, generally do not present a threat to human health or 

the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if 

brought to the attention of appropriate government agencies. Conditions determined to be de 

minimis are not Recognized Environmental Conditions. The following are considered to be de 

minimis conditions: (1) The possibility of hazardous oil (i.e., PCBs) used in the operation of 

electrical transformers that have not been otherwise documented by the power utility provider; 

(2) The potential long-term usage of agricultural chemicals, such as fertilizers, pesticides and 

herbicides; and (3) Minor spillage of chemical and/or petroleum products that do not pose a 

threat to human health or the environment not considered to be the subject of enforcement 

action by an appropriate governmental agency.

In addition, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed for the former golf 

course site, Site 2, by Environmental Operations, Inc. (EOI), on October 21, 2011. The scope 

followed by EOI was done in accordance with ASTM E 1527-05 guidance language for Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessments. The database report prepared for the Phase I ESA was 

performed by Environmental Data Resources (EDR), which lists federal and state regulatory 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-28 Environmental Assessment

facilities in accordance with ASTM search distances. The scope of the Phase I ESA incorporated 

the entire footprint of the golf course, approximately 58 acres, with an additional four acres of a 

densely forested area north and across the UPRR rail line, thus making the subject property 62 

acres in size. The database search established the outer edges of the 62-acre footprint to initiate 

search distances parameters for each of the federal and state databases required by ASTM. 

Results of the database search identified three RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

of 1976) Conditionally Exempt (CESQG) generator sites west and down-gradient from the 

former golf course on Homer Adams Parkway, ranging from 665 feet to 1120 feet away. Per 

USEPA, conditionally exempt small quantity generators that generate less than 100 kilograms

(kg) of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. No other 

databases within the search distance criteria were identified in the database report. EOI did not 

evaluate the three CESQG sites since they fell beyond ASTM-specified search distance. No spill 

data was provided in the description of hazardous wastes generated at any of these facilities.

The Phase I ESA revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection 

with the subject property.

3.3.6.2 Potential Impacts

Results of the database search do not identify significant regulatory activity for the No-Build 

and Build Alternative sites. Prior to construction, a determination of potential impacts will be 

included in a PESA.

3.3.7 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) requires

federal agencies to consider the impacts of their project undertakings on historic architectural 

and archeological resources that are either listed in or have been determined eligible for listing 

in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 800). This subsection provides an 

evaluation of historic, architectural and archaeological resources within the study areas.

3.3.7.1 Existing Conditions

A Draft Conditions Assessment Report was prepared for the existing Alton Amtrak Station by 

Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) in 2010 to determine the building’s potential historic eligibility under 

NRHP criteria. In 2012, the SHPO requested an additional report to be prepared, a 

Determination of Eligibility Report. The report recommended that the station was not eligible 

for listing in the NRHP. However, SHPO determined in a December 2012 letter that the station 

may qualify under Criterion A, for its significant role in the transportation history of Alton.

A Phase I Archaeological Survey was prepared for Build Alternative Site 2 due to historical use 

of the property in the 1800’s and prior to the City of Alton annexing the property and 

developing it as a public golf course in the 1920s and 1930s. Results of the archaeological and 

historical analysis performed by Gateway Archaeology in October 2011 identified an area along 

the western boundary of the golf course and Golf Road (access driveway) as possibly meeting 

the requirements for National Register eligibility. A ruling was made based on the results of this 

study by the SHPO in March 2012 stating that this site may be eligible for listing on the NRHP 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-29 Environmental Assessment

under Criterion D. Criterion D is for sites that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, 

information important in prehistory or history. A Phase II invasive study performed by 

Gateway Archaeology in June 2012 determined that the relics and materials buried at this 

location reflect “a major Early Farming period component and a minor Modern Farming period 

component and that if these deposits cannot be avoided by the proposed project, data recovery 

investigations should be performed prior to construction or earth-moving activities.”

3.3.7.2 Potential Impacts

As part of the planned improvements for Build Alternative Site 2, design of the access road off 

of Homer Adams Parkway was revised in order to avoid impacting a potentially significant 

archaeological site that occupied a portion of the golf course. The access roadway that connects 

Homer Adams Parkway to the portion of the property that would be developed with a new 

multimodal transportation center has been redesigned to avoid impacting this potential historic 

preservation area.

The FRA and IDOT, in consultation with the SHPO, have identified two historic properties that

would be affected by the project: an archaeological site and the existing Alton railroad station. 

The archaeological site, a mid-ninetieth century Euro-American farmstead, is eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under criterion D and the existing Alton railroad 

station is eligible under criterion A. A draft memorandum of agreement (MOA) between FRA, 

IDOT, and the Section 106 consulting parties (City of Alton, Alton Historical Commission, and 

Alton Area Landmarks Association) is being reviewed by Section 106 consulting parties and 

would be completed prior to the Federal Action on the project, which is currently expected to be 

a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Draft MOA can be found in Appendix B.

3.4 Construction Impacts

Impacts associated with construction of the improvements would be local and temporary. The 

most noticeable impacts would likely be noise, vibration, dust, and traffic disruptions. Noise 

and vibration impacts were discussed in more detail in Section 3.1.4.

These temporary impacts would occur from operation of equipment for the construction of a 

new stationhouse and new platform. For the No-Build Alternative, no impacts will occur. 

Normal traffic on local streets would be flagged at various times to allow entry and exit of 

construction equipment to the project site. Such occurrences are expected to be perceived by 

motorists as an inconvenience. However, these impacts would be temporary, and existing 

vehicular travel would be restored after construction has been completed.

The project sites may require periodic reduction in the operating speed of trains that pass 

through construction zones. Also, there may be a need to adjust the schedule of rail operations 

if activities require temporary shutdown of selected track sections. Such schedule and/or 

operations adjustments would be necessary when there is a potential safety risk due to the 

proximity of moving trains and construction activities that are incompatible with ongoing train 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-30 Environmental Assessment

traffic. Such delays or disruptions may be similar to normal maintenance activities under 

existing conditions.

Construction of a new station and station platform would also require subgrade preparation 

and earthwork. Construction of these facilities for Build Alternative Site 1 would require 

purchasing an additional six acres of ROW. Construction at Build Alternative Site 2 would 

occur within UPRR ROW and City of Alton property and would not require the purchasing of 

additional ROW.

Construction of either Build Alternative (Site 1 or 2) would require indirect consumption of 

energy for processing materials, construction activities, and maintenance of the Transportation 

Center. Energy consumption by vehicles in the vicinity of the proposed improvements may 

increase during construction due to possible traffic delays. Best management practices (BMPs) 

would be utilized to reduce construction related temporary impacts. 

3.5 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

3.5.1 Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts are defined as reasonably foreseeable future consequences to the environment 

that are caused by the proposed action, but that would occur either in the future (later in time) 

or near, but not in the same location as, direct impacts associated with implementation of a 

build alternative. Under the CEQ regulations, indirect impacts are defined as those that are “... 

caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably 

foreseeable. Indirect effects would include growth- inducing effects and other effects related to 

induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related 

effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystem” (40 CFR 1508.8b).

Indirect impacts can be associated with the consequences of land use change and development 

that would be indirectly supported by changes in local access or mobility. Indirect impacts 

differ from those directly associated with the construction and operation of a project itself and 

are often caused by what is commonly referred to as “induced development.” Induced

development would include a variety of alterations such as changes in land use, economic 

vitality, property values and/or population density. The potential for secondary impacts to 

occur is determined in part by local land-use and development-planning objectives and the 

physical location of a proposed action.

Under the No-Build Alternative, the station would remain on its existing site and no indirect 

impacts would be expected. Construction of either Build Alternatives (Site 1 or 2) could result in 

indirect impacts as both alternatives would involve a change in the current land use for both 

sites. The new station may result in development of adjacent properties and redevelopment of 

neighboring businesses in the vicinity of the station. The City of Alton’s long term vision 

includes creation of a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) district focused on the 

Transportation Center. Although minimal, the potential negative impacts associated with this

TOD district would be related to impacted wetlands, increased traffic for longer trips, and 

reduced open space in the immediate vicinity. However, positive impacts of guiding 
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-31 Environmental Assessment

development into a denser configuration include reduced automobile travel for shorter trips, 

better bicycle and pedestrian access, and fewer impacts to land currently utilized for 

agriculture. 

3.5.2 Cumulative Impacts

The consideration of cumulative effects consists of an assessment of the total effect on a 

resource, ecosystem, or community from past, present, and future actions that have altered the 

quantity, quality, or context of those resources within a broad geographic scope. Under the CEQ 

regulations, cumulative effects are defined as “...the impact on the environment which results 

from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). The 

cumulative effects analysis considers the aggregate effects of direct and indirect impacts – from 

federal, non-federal, public, or private actions – on the quality or quantity of a resource.

The intent of a cumulative-effects analysis is to determine the magnitude and significance of 

cumulative effects, both beneficial and adverse, and to determine the contribution of the 

proposed action to those aggregate effects. Cumulative effects associated with either of the 

proposed build alternatives on the resources analyzed would be limited to those derived from 

the direct and indirect impacts of the action.

The No-Build Alternative would not have any cumulative impacts. 

The most notable known projects that would result in cumulative impacts near the study area 

are the high-speed rail track improvements between Alton and East St. Louis. Because most of 

these improvements will occur within the existing UPRR right-of-way, the cumulative effect of 

adding these impacts to the impacts associated with this proposed project are anticipated to be 

minimal. With regard to air quality, these projects are expected to provide an overall 

cumulative benefit. The high-speed rail facility is expected to provide service to motorists who 

would otherwise travel to Alton by automobile. This shift in travel mode is expected to reduce 

overall vehicle emissions. 

3.6 Preferred Alternative

The development of the project’s Build Alternatives Site 1 and Site 2 resulted from close 

coordination and cooperation between IDOT, FRA, the City of Alton and various state and 

federal agencies, which were established early in the project’s development.

Based on the social, economic, and environmental analysis in this EA, and input from the 

general public, IDOT has determined that Build Alternative Site 2 is the Preferred Alternative.

IDOT found that while both of the Build Alternatives provide for a new passenger rail station 

with adequate platform length, parking for cars, roadway access improvements, and ten bus 

parking spots for both regional and local bus lines, the Build Alternative Site 2 allows for
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 3-32 Environmental Assessment

greater future community growth near the Transportation Center due to the large amounts of 

undeveloped land nearby. Build Alternative Site 2 has the additional acreage that Build 

Alternative Site 1 does not allow due to its surrounding land use and smaller lot size.

3.7 Permits

IDOT and/or the City of Alton would be required to obtain approvals and or permits under the 

following authorities: 

Connections to the public water distribution system and sanitary system, as well as a 

Certificate of Occupancy from the local building department. 

Compliance with 70 ILCS 405 Soil and Water Conservation Districts Act. 

Coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm 

Water discharge permit, which is administered by the Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (IEPA).

An approved operating soil erosion and sedimentation control program which ensures 

compliance with 70 ILCS 405 Soil and Water Conservation Districts Act.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Water Quality Certification from the IEPA.

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Construction Permit from the IEPA. Because the proposed project would 

potentially disturb more than one acre, it would be subject to the requirement for an NPDES 

permit for stormwater discharges from the construction site. Permit coverage would be 

obtained under the IEPA General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Site 

Activities (NPDES Permit No. ILR10). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan would be 

prepared and implemented, in accordance with requirements under the NPDES permit(s).

Prior to construction, erosion control fencing would be placed at the limits of construction. 

Zones of fill, grading, compaction, or equipment movement would be restricted to areas 

outside the protective fencing. Impacts from silt and sedimentation would be minimized 

through adherence to erosion control measures outlined in IDOT’s Standard Specification’s 

for Road and Bridge Construction, January 1, 2012.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 4-1 Environmental Assessment

4.0 Coordination and Consultation

Public involvement is an important part of any IDOT project planning process. In addition to 

working with the requisite federal and state agencies, IDOT efforts for this EA included 

outreach to a wide variety of stakeholders along the project corridor. A hard copy of this EA 

will be in the local library in Alton; and electronic copies will be available on IDOT and FRA 

websites.

4.1 Meetings

IDOT will hold a public meeting after publication of the EA. IDOT will advertise the hearing 

through a notice in the local paper for Alton. The EA will be available for public review and 

comment both in printed copy form at the Hayner Public Library, Downtown Alton Location,

and electronic form on IDOT and FRA websites. Public and agency comment on the EA should 

be sent to: 

Miriam Gutierrez, Bureau Chief

IDOT Bureau of High Speed and Passenger Rail

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600

Chicago, IL 60601

4.2 Agencies

Letters sent to agencies are shown in Appendix B. This appendix includes letters sent by FRA

for this EA. All coordination will be conducted in accordance of FRA procedures.

4.2.1 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Consultation

The SHPO was contacted for this project and consultation is ongoing as of publication of this 

EA. 

4.2.2 Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Consultation

The IDNR was contacted for this project by using the Illinois Department of Natural Resources’ 

Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool (EcoCAT). The results of the EcoCAT are included in 

Appendix B.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 5-1 Environmental Assessment

5.0 Distribution List 

5.1 Agency Coordination

5.1.1 Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Federal Highway Administration, Illinois Division

Federal Transit Administration, Region 5

National Park Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Marion, IL Field Office

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5

U.S. Senator Richard Durbin

U.S. Senator Mark Kirk

U.S. House of Representative, Jerry Costello, Congressional District No. 12

5.1.2 State Agencies

Illinois Department of Agriculture

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

Illinois Natural History Survey

Illinois State Senator, William Haine, District No. 56

Illinois State Representative, Daniel Beiser, District No. 111

5.1.3 Other Agencies and Commissions

Madison County Metro East Transit District

Heartlands Conservancy

5.1.4 Counties

Madison

5.1.5 Local Communities and Jurisdictions

City of Alton

5.1.6 Railroads

Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Company
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 6-1 Environmental Assessment

6.0 References

Berg, R.C., J.P. Kempton and K. Cartwright, 1984. Potential for contamination of shallow aquifers in 

Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 532.

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” and by implementation of federal 

regulations under 44 CFR 9.00., May 24, 1977, as amended.

Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans: A Guidance Manuel, 

July 8, 2005.

Illinois Department of Transportation, Illinois High-Speed Rail, Chicago to St. Louis, Station 

Programming Study: Alton Amtrak Station, 2011. Draft report, June 29, 2011.

Illinois Department of Transportation, High-Speed Rail, Chicago to St. Louis, Alton Regional 

Multimodal Transportation Center Project, Alternatives Screening, Draft report May 2012.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and 

Section 303(d) LIST – 2010. Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 Water 

Resource Assessment Information and Listing of Impaired Waters. Appendix B. Draft.

And http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/groundwater/groundwater-protection/1996-

1997/groundwater-protection-1996-1997.pdf

Madison County Hazard Mitigation Plan, Madison County Planning and Development 

Department, et al, 2006.

Madison County Planning & Zoning Comprehensive Plan, Madison County, Illinois, 2009.

Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) plan ,1998, 2000, and 2004.

http://www.idothsr.org/about/prior_studies.aspx 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census Bureau, 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture, February 

2009, updated September 2009. Illinois State and County Data, Volume 1 – Geographic 

Area Series – Part 13. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, 2004. Soil Survey of 

Madison County, Illinois.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey, 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.
Alton Regional Multimodal 

Transportation Center Project 6-2 Environmental Assessment

U.S. Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau, 2010 and 2000 Census, 

www.census.gov

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), FIRMette, https://msc.fema.gov .

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory Map, 

Wetlands Mapper, www.fws.gov/wetlands.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad

Administration, and Illinois Department of Transportation, 2003. Final Environmental 

Impact Statement , Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail Project. January 2003. 

http://www.dot.il.gov/hsrail/pdf/cover.pdf

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 2005. High‐Speed Ground

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual. 

U.S. Geological Survey, The National Map Viewer, http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer .